Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

RAF Valley

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the impact on the local economy of the market-testing exercise at RAF Valley. [26031]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Several, and of course my right hon. Friend met the hon. Gentleman and a delegation from the area last week.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the Secretary of State for meeting the delegation from my constituency last week. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that we put forward an extremely strong case for the retention of jobs at RAF Valley and for requesting the Ministry of Defence to phase in its proposals for market testing, otherwise it will be very difficult for us to compete effectively in an area of high unemployment.
Does the Minister accept that what the Secretary of State told us on Tuesday should be confirmed? The Secretary of State said that he is prepared to use his political influence, both with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence and, if necessary, with his colleagues in the Cabinet, to ensure that that very strong case is accepted and that he accepts that maximising the number of local jobs at RAF Valley is a top priority.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend is certainly more than willing to ensure that our colleagues at the Ministry of Defence are fully aware of the case being put forward. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the training and enterprise council is undertaking a useful skills audit. That audit and any other points that are raised must be considered carefully so that the RAF's operational needs can be best met while, at the same time, seeking to ensure as much local employment as possible.

Mr. Ron Davies: I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and I assure the Minister that the campaign on behalf of RAF Valley has the full support of Opposition Front Benchers.
As the Ministry of Defence proposals would have cost some 600 to 700 jobs in Anglesey, why was the Welsh Office not consulted in advance of the announcement? Can the Minister confirm that there is a major problem with the market-testing programme, in that there is a shortage of local skills? Now that the localtraining and

enterprise council has completed its skills audit and, I understand, has told the Welsh Office that there is a need for deferment, will the Minister accept that the proposals for a four to five-year deferment are reasonable and would allow the local community to prepare itself by developing the necessary skills? Does the Minister realise that anything less than that will be an absolute betrayal of a community who have served the country loyally and well?

Mr. Jones: The Ministry of Defence's announcement comes under the consultation arrangements and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Office is fully involved in that consultation process. We have already agreed a deferment with the Ministry of Defence, in that the consultation period will now be extended until the end of June. I am sure that that time will be used very effectively to ensure that all the points are considered properly.

Unemployment

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently unemployed (a) in Wales and (b) in Alyn and Deeside. [26032]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): In April 1995, there were 108,094 unemployed people in Wales and 2,458 unemployed in the district of Alyn and Deeside. Those figures are well down on those for last year and we wish to see them go even lower.

Mr. Jones: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the loss of 140 jobs at NK International in my constituency and the loss of some 350 jobs at Kilroe Engineering this month. On that basis, will he consider granting development area status to my constituency? In that context, will he pledge his Department's and his Government's assistance with regard to Raytheon Jets' proposal to build a service station at Broughton in my constituency? Will he join me in trying to save hundreds of existing jobs?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman of course has my assurance that I will do anything within my legal powers to help with the Raytheon situation. He knows that I have intervened in the past, and I am happy to do so again to try to promote the area. I think that Raytheon can get a lot of good work from the very talented and skilled work force already in the area. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that point.
I do not think that there is a strong case for assisted area status, because I am delighted to say that unemployment in his area is well below the Welsh and the United Kingdom average; it is also well below the European average and has continued to fall. Despite the heavy blow of job losses that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, unemployment has fallen month after month and the unemployment rate in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl area is now 6.8 per cent. I want to see the unemployment rate lower still, but it is good by national standards.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still scope for creating new jobs in the countryside in Wales as a whole and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)? Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair that England has been promised a White Paper on the rural economy? Why is Wales being sold short? Why did the White Paper not include the


subjects of Wales or forestry, which is an important industry for Wales? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee to the House that any initiatives or incentives that are available to England as a result of the White Paper's recommendations will be available to Wales also?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right: if good initiatives are being introduced in England that we are not already undertaking in Wales, we would want to adopt them in Wales as well. I give him that assurance again, as I have in the past to the House. My officials are keeping in close contact with the work in England. Of course, we had already set out a policy in Wales some time before the English initiative; but if there are good new ideas, I want Wales to be included in them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Morgan: As the newly unemployed in Wales will soon be losing their income support and mortgage assistance, does the Secretary of State's call at the Welsh Tory party conference at the weekend for the home-owning quiet majority to be celebrated, and not taxed, mean that he is breaking ranks with the rest of the Cabinet on the issue, as on so many other Government policies?

Mr. Redwood: No, I am not. The hon. Gentleman took a long time to remember his silly point today, which is why he sat on the Front Bench for such a long time after you called him, Madam Speaker. I am strongly in favour of every policy that the Government are putting forward. Of course, we believe in home ownership, unlike the Opposition, who undermined home owners whenever possible when they were in government.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to ensure that track services in Wales are maintained in the event of rail privatisation. [26033]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and I have met the franchising director and I have also met the chairman of Railtrack plc.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does the Minister realise that services are threatened not only by privatisation but by the Government's dithering while privatisation is being discussed? When will the Welsh Office decide where the new freight depot will be in south Wales, if we are to have one? I have written to the Welsh Office supporting the Pengam site, but whether it is Pengam or Magor, the decision needs to be taken rapidly. Welsh business depends on it.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I would rush to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no dithering about the rail freight depot in south Wales; we look forward to a decision being taken. Nor is there any dithering on privatisation generally, which undoubtedly will bring tremendous benefits to the rail travellers of Britain.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that for track services through central Wales to be viable, it is essential for Regional Railways Central to provide a decent standard of service for passengers? Does he agree that a service that provides no on-station information,

lavatories or telephones, and, at times when one expects tourists, leaves literally hundreds of people standing in inadequate trains, is not of an acceptable standard?

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentlemen does exactly my job for me: he makes the case for privatisation. There has not been the incentive to provide that service before, because the passenger has not been key. In future, the passenger will be key.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister not accept that in the south Wales valleys in particular the general morphology militates against effective communications? [HON. MEMBERS: "Morphology?"] It is the shape of the valleys—something that hon. Members might not understand. It militates against effective communication and transport problems. Will he ensure that, in the unlikely event of privatisation, there is effective investment in track maintenance as well as the maintenance of services?

Mr. Jones: Investment is specifically the responsibility of Railtrack, but I certainly do not accept the surmise of the hon. Gentleman's question and I have a very good basis for that. As he will know, two of the valleys lines run through my constituency of Cardiff, North. The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will benefit by the removal of restrictions and increasing incentives, which will lead to a better service for passengers using the valley lines and all railways.

Public Spending Review

4. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who in his Department is responsible for the Government's fundamental review of public spending; and if he will make a statement. [26034]

Mr. Redwood: I am responsible for reviewing public spending in Wales and for reporting on it to the House. I have especially concentrated on reducing overheads in the Welsh Office and in quangos. Any conclusions from general UK reviews will be incorporated in Wales where appropriate.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for putting himself in charge—unlike in some Departments, where officials are expected to take a lead. Does my right hon. Friend agree that control of public expenditure has gone hand in hand with a dramatic revival of the Wales economy? Would not Labour's determination to increase public expenditure put that revival at risk?

Mr. Redwood: Yes. Of course unreasonable increases in public expenditure would threaten the recovery. It would mean borrowing too much, which would force up interest rates and damage business, or taxing too much, which would also damage business—or a combination of the two. That is exactly why some Labour Members are now extremely shy about saying that they believe in more public spending, while others—as we well know—are full of plans to spend more. Meantime, I am pleased to say that the overheads of the Countryside Council for Wales and of the Welsh Office are this year coming down by almost £2 million and £1.7 million respectively. The overheads of the Welsh Development Agency will be £1.9 million lower than two years ago.

Mr. Ray Powell: As the Secretary of State is responsible for those estimates, I wonder whether he is responsible for his statement to the Tory party conference at the weekend suggesting £100 million expenditure by Labour on a Welsh Assembly. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, nation and Principality how he came to assume that figure?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement. I am completing my estimate of the likely cost of such an assembly and will release it shortly. I made no statement at the Conservative conference—although occasionally there is inspired journalism in Wales. I suspect that the figure will not be far from that rumoured, but I have not yet completed my estimate. I shall release it shortly.

Mr. Sweeney: In welcoming the expenditure reductions achieved by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him what steps he is taking to reduce administration costs in the health service, so that the maximum money can be spent on patient care?

Mr. Redwood: As my hon. Friend may know, we are about to lower the number of health authorities from 17 to five, which will make a material reduction in the health administrative overhead at health authority level. We are now seeing fruits from the changes that I introduced to recruitment procedures for administration and management in general, which will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I have also taken a particular interest in consultancy expenditure throughout the Welsh Office, which has fallen from £1.45 million the previous year to £800,000. If we manage to keep up the pressure, I hope that that figure will reduce further.

Mr. Wigley: Instead of kow-towing to every planted, uninspired question from every sioni siencyn on the Government Benches, will the Secretary of State put time into getting his figures right in respect of spurious estimates, such as that for a Welsh Parliament? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cost of running both Chambers of the Irish Parliament this year will be £28 million and that the New Zealand Parliament costs £40 million a year? If that is the extent of the understanding of figures in the Welsh Office, is it not a good explanation of why the Government's financial controls are out of sync and unacceptable to the people of these islands?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for my forecast. I shall set out exactly how it was compiled, so that the people of Wales can reach their own judgment on whether I have underdone it or overdone it.

Mr. Ron Davies: I refer the Secretary of State to recent remarks by the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, in which she criticised the Government for failing to control public expenditure and for being the highest taxing Government since the war. Is that not another demonstration of how hopelessly split the Conservative party is? As its leaders no longer have confidence in each other, why on earth should the country have confidence in them? Lady Thatcher claims that she still has supporters in the Cabinet. Why does the Secretary of State not have the honesty to admit that he is one of them—or does he still profess loyalty to the present Prime Minister?

Mr. Redwood: Of course I support the present Prime Minister, and I am pleased that the Government are setting out to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of gross national product—in a way that is painful to the Labour party, because it means that we shall be able to deliver our promises to start lowering taxation while producing high-quality public services. The economy is now growing, which is, of course, the secret of success.

Unemployment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of unemployed in Wales; and what was the figure in December 1992. [26035]

Mr. Redwood: In April 1995, the seasonally adjusted figures for Wales were 106,900, compared with 133,400 in December 1992. This represents a fall of 26,500, or one fifth, in the unemployed total.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, showing that there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in unemployment in Wales. Does he agree that that is due to inward investment, which has been encouraged by Wales as part of the United Kingdom's having a low corporate rate of tax, no national minimum wage and no social chapter? Does he believe that that would be helped if Wales had a Welsh Assembly, which would make it one of the most over-governed countries in the world?

Mr. Redwood: On the contrary: it would put a lot of investors off, at home and abroad. The growth has come about from domestic companies and from inward investment. It has been marked in small companies and in self-employment, as well as in the larger inward investors. They all benefit from our attitude to decent wages and social costs under sensible control.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Department of Employment recently provided me with a list of all job vacancies advertised in Blaenau Gwent, and their hourly wage rates. The average hourly wage rate for those vacancies was just over £3. Can the Secretary of State inform families in my constituency how they can bring up children on that kind of money?

Mr. Redwood: If that were the sole income coming into a family, it would clearly need supplementing—it would probably be supplemented by the benefit system. But it would be even crueller to make those sorts of jobs illegal so that the people currently enjoying them could not even have them. Doing that would not suddenly lead to a doubling of wages—the jobs would disappear altogether.
The hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the fact that many thousands of new manufacturing jobs at good wages have been created in Wales in recent years as a result of our economic policies.

Dr. Howells: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind across to 600 of those jobs, created in the electronics industry, and look carefully at the plight in which Race Electronics in my constituency finds itself? The company has been at the leading edge of burgeoning Welsh electronics production but faces dire difficulties at the moment.

Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I shall look at that. I have already asked for more information and briefing on the problem of that company. I am told that there is a reasonable chance that the business will continue, and that it is hoped that a new buyer will be found to take it on. I am told that there is some strength in the underlying business. I hope that that is true; I shall make further inquiries and keep the hon. Gentleman posted.

District General Hospitals

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to safeguard the position of smaller district general hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [26036]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 1995, Official Report, column 303. Any substantial change in the use of a hospital requires extensive public consultation before it can be put into effect. If the proposals for change do not secure the agreement of local community health councils, they must be referred to my right hon. Friend for decision.

Mr. Dafis: I hope that the Minister is aware that Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth is the smallest district general hospital in England or Wales—or, indeed, in most of the United Kingdom—and that its resulting higher unit costs are liable to put it at something of a competitive disadvantage. Is he further aware of the chronic underfunding of capital works in the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, and that this, in addition to the other factor, could lead to a gradual spiral of decline in the scope and quality of the provision of services in the hospital and the trust? Will he undertake to have a careful look at the funding situation and ensure, following careful study, that no such decline occurs—bearing in mind the key strategic importance of Aberystwyth as a centre on the west coast of Wales?

Mr. Richards: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, I visited the Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth—it was my first visit on being appointed a Minister at the Welsh Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we look carefully at the provision of services and the purchasing of those services by health authorities. We shall obviously keep an eye on the way in which Dyfed health authority purchases services for the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mrs. Clwyd: May I ask the Minister to examine the provision of services in Aberdare general hospital? Although there has been general consultation in the Cynon valley, there is grave dissatisfaction with the failure of the health authority to give dates for the reopening of wards. In addition, the authority has failed to give assurances that day surgery will be carried out under general anaesthetic at the hospital, as it was in the past. What was once a thriving general hospital is now gradually running down. That has happened while the Minister has had responsibility for health in Wales. I ask him to examine these issues as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Richards: The provision of health care and services in Wales is better than it has ever been. I am sure that the hon. Lady has the wherewithal to take up individual cases with the appropriate health authority.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met local authority associations in Wales to discuss the reorganisation services following the setting up of the shadow authorities. [26037]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and I last met both the local authority associations on 18 January 1994 when a range of issues relating to local government and reorganisation was discussed.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is widespread concern in Wales about the proposed reorganisation of the fire service? Does he accept that the proposed reorganisation is opposed by those who work in the service, by the eight fire authorities and by all the new 22 unitary authorities? Does he accept also that there is now a case to re-examine the proposal to ensure that there is consensus among the people of Wales on a vital service?

Mr. Jones: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of fire brigades throughout Wales. I know well that the proposals that are now being made will be most carefully studied to ensure that there is no reduction in the level of services that the fire brigades in Wales provide.

Mr. Knapman: When the new unitary authorities are in place, will there be anything to stop the new councillors from quadrupling their allowances and expenses?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a most important problem—that of trying to curb the natural tendencies of Labour councillors to do what they do rather than what they profess to say they will do.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that, by independent assessment, the Gwent fire service has been judged to be the most effective response force in the country? Is it not logical, therefore, to leave it as an independent force, preferably conterminous with the new police authority—that is, Gwent plus the Rhymney Valley? That would surely make far more sense than lumping the Gwent fire service with other local services.

Mr. Jones: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's regard for the importance of the standards that are being achieved by the Gwent force. I have complete confidence that there will be no changes that will result in any reduction of the levels of service that must be achieved, are being achieved and, I am sure, will continue to be achieved in Gwent and elsewhere in Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Minister met representatives of local government in Wales, did he take some time to praise education authorities—especially Labour ones—for the pioneering work that they are doing in providing nursery education, which is achieving far better provision than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Will the Minister be prepared to provide the new authorities with extra resources to enable all three and four-year-olds to have a nursery place and to support the voluntary sector? Such provision will give three and four-year-olds a real head start in life, which is what Baroness Thatcher promised to provide over 20 years ago. Will the Minister now implement the proposal?

Mr. Jones: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted Question 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), which relates exactly to nursery education. I suggest that he bide his time and wait until that question is reached. In the meanwhile, I content myself with the observation that I notice that all education authorities in Wales have made sufficient provision in their education funding, despite their fears and claims beforehand, to ensure that the teachers' pay increase is paid in full in each of the eight education authorities in Wales, and that they are now turning their attention to increasing allowances for councillors.

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the consultation period referred to in his recent announcement of the Welsh Office's aim to vary local authority boundaries is to commence; and if he will make a statement. [26038]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The consultation period ended on 5 May 1995 and we are now currently giving our consideration to all the representations.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply, but ensconced as he is in the morphology of Cardiff, North, he will be pathetically out of touch with Welsh public opinion. The fact is that there are now fewer councillors under the unitary authority system than there are people on his quangos. Does he realise that that is a very bad thing for democracy and that the people of Wales view it with dismay and, indeed, disgust? May I tell him that in no circumstances will the people of Wales put up with any more gerrymandering to lessen the number of democratically elected people in Wales?

Mr. Jones: I waited patiently to try to hear a question from the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I have heard one. I would correct him on one of his factual errors. Yes, my right hon. Friend makes appointments to quangos; he made some 850 appointments. That is significantly less than the number of councillors in the new unitary authorities in Wales. I note the insult from Plaid Cymru towards the capital city of Wales. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly suggest that Cardiff, North is out of touch with public opinion in the Principality.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister aware that local authorities, our councillors, our electorates, are going through a period of great turmoil as a result of local government reorganisation and unitary authorities? In those circumstances, is there not a case for slowing down the usual work of the Local Government Commission, in terms of councillors per seat, so that the existing structure can be more consolidated?

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the work that is being taken forward by the commission will be at a wholly appropriate speed for the reorganisation of local government in Wales. As I said, in answer to the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we are considering the responses to the consultation. We are looking closely at the number of councillors; I do not expect to see any significant reduction in their number. We are certainly giving close consideration to whether there should be any overall limit to the number of councillors on each council.

Nursery Education

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve nursery education provision. [26039]

Mr. Richards: The Government are committed to ensuring that a pre-school place is available for every four-year-old whose parents want to take it up. We are currently considering how that commitment can best be implemented in Wales.

Mr. Flynn: Why are the children of parents who live in Labour-controlled local authorities three times more likely to get places in nursery schools than the children of parents who live in Conservative-controlled authorities? Why is it that in the county of Berkshire, where Wokingham is situated, fewer than one third of the children enjoy nursery education, yet in the county of Gwent, where Newport is situated, three quarters of the children enjoy that provision? How dare the Government say that they are about to start on a crusade in education—16 years late? Would it not be better for the people of Wales and Wokingham, when the glorious day arrives and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) becomes Secretary of State for Wales, if my right hon. Friend also took over the duty as governor-general of Wokingham?

Mr. Richards: Berkshire is a Liberal-Labour-controlled local authority. I think that that is called an own goal. Conservative Members certainly recognise the benefits of pre-school education. The hon. Gentleman can be certain of one thing: when it is introduced in Wales, there will be diversity and choice. He is certainly one person who could have benefited from pre-school education. Indeed, he might even benefit from it now.

Open Government

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for advancing open government in Wales. [26040]

Mr. Richards: The Welsh Office has published and distributed widely a bilingual leaflet that explains how to make a request for information under the code of practise on access to government information. A bilingual code has also been published on openness in the NHS.
In the first nine months of operating the code, the Welsh Office provided information free of charge in response to more than 1,000 requests. Some 99 per cent. of those requests were dealt with in the target of 20 working days.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, will the Minister investigate whether the code and those principles apply to his own Department, given that, on 2 March, in the debate on Welsh affairs—at column 1236—the Secretary of State said that the Countryside Council for Wales had been


given perfectly adequate funds to meet its statutory requirements. The fact is, however, that the council had appealed privately to the Secretary of State because it did not have adequate funds even to meet its minimum requirements, let alone for what it wanted to do.
Can we have not just words, codes and charters from the Welsh Office, but open government that will reveal to us when the Secretary of State does not tell the House what has actually been going on and what the facts are?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is poorly informed. The Countryside Council for Wales was given more and, indeed, subsequently confirmed that it had had enough. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to his basic data and, if he so wishes, write to the council. I am sure that, under the code of practice, it will give him the accurate information that he so direly needs.

Economic Activity

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for economic activity rates for (a) the south Wales valleys, (b) Wales and (c) Britain. [26041]

Mr. Redwood: I am advised that the latest figures that we have for the south Wales valleys for economically active rates come from the 1991 census of population. At that time the figure was 52.9 per cent. We have more up-to-date figures from the 1994–95 labour survey for Wales and Great Britain, which stood at 57.2 per cent. and 62.4 per cent.

Mr. Williams: The Welsh Office regularly claims that unemployment in Wales is now down to the British average, and we welcome that; but the unemployment figure tells only part of the story. When economic activity rates are taken into account—especially in the old industrial areas—about 15 per cent. can be added to the male unemployment figure, partly because of early retirement but mainly because people have been encouraged to take invalidity benefit wherever applicable.
In what way do the Government recognise those lower economic activity rates in Wales, and what will be the effect of changes caused by the introduction of incapacity benefit, which will take people off invalidity benefit and put them on to the dole queues? Does the Secretary of State accept that the economies of large areas in south Wales are performing well below capacity?

Mr. Redwood: No, I do not accept that. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to sidestep the fact that unemployment is very low in his part of Wales, which is welcome. In the Carmarthen travel-to-work area, it is 4.7 per cent.; in the Llandeilo travel-to-work area, it is 5 per cent. Many hon. Members would love to have such low levels of unemployment in their constituencies: they show that our policies have been successful.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that all those who are properly registered as being in ill health or disabled should be forced to work. That is not our policy, although it may be Labour's. When people are genuinely disabled or in ill health, they receive benefits and they are not expected to work. It is sad that there are more disabled people in some parts of Wales, but we intend to take care of them rather than doing as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

NHS Patients

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were treated by the NHS in (a) 1979 and (b) 1994. [26042]

Mr. Redwood: The national health service in Wales saw 633,000 new out-patients and treated 739,000 in-patients and day cases in 1994–95, compared with 429,000 and 381,000 respectively in 1979.

Mr. Evans: I welcome that incredible increase, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the money secured through any future modifications and savings in the NHS in Wales will be spent directly on patient care and not on dancing to the music of the paymasters of many Opposition Members, the health unions in Wales?

Mr. Redwood: Of course we wish to concentrate the money on patient care. One of the reasons for the success in treating so many more patients is that we have targeted much more money on ensuring that patients come first, and that more treatment is available for them. That is the overriding priority, and one that I intend to continue.

Mr. Hain: If the Secretary of State really believes that health services are improving under the Conservatives, is he living on planet Portillo or possibly planet Redwood?

Mr. Redwood: That be the lamest silly question that we have heard all day, and probably for many weeks, in the House of Commons. Of course I put the interests of patients first. Of course I am proud to come to the House and ask for more money for the national health service in Wales, which it has needed and which it has been given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am also keen to ensure that health services in his region are improved by new investment as well as the additional commitment of people and new treatments. That is what we shall do. The hon. Gentleman's cheap debating points demean him and the House.

Inward Investment

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created as a result of inward investment over the past five years; what were the figures for 1974 to 1979; and if he will make a statement. [26043]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Figures for 1974 to 1979 are not available. In the past five years, 852 inward investment projects have been recorded, promising almost 38,000 new jobs and capital investment of £4.5 billion. Those figures are a clear illustration of the importance of inward investment to Wales.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friends on those remarkable figures. Is it not amazing that the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 did not record their figures? No doubt they had nothing to record. My hon. Friend should continue to go for it: it must be good for jobs, good for Wales and good for the whole of Britain.

Mr. Jones: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulations. They give me the opportunity to explode another myth being peddled by the Opposition—that the jobs being brought to Wales are cheap, part-time jobs for women. They are not: the manufacturing employment pay


figures show that males are now on 99.9 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, and females in manufacturing in Wales are earning above the UK average.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Research and Development

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he will make to the technology foresight panels' recommendations for additional spending on Government-funded research and development. [26055]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): I have announced a technology foresight challenge fund, totalling £80 million, to which my Department will contribute half during the next three years.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Chancellor confirm that his Government's "Forward Look" figures show that, between 1986 and projected spend in 1996, the Government will have taken almost £1 billion out of the science and technology budget? Are not the Government taking money out of science and technology in lorryloads and giving it back in jam jars?

Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that at all. The science budget, for which I am responsible, has increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms in the past 16 years. As to the science and technology spend throughout Government, in all Departments, the hon. Lady will be aware of the effects of the review of defence spending and, indeed, the effects of the launch aid in the aerospace industry and several other factors.
The important thing is that the latest statistics, published in March, showed that more was being spent on research and development by industry, by universities and by Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in recognising the important impact of the technology foresight process, we should pay great tribute to Sir William Stewart, who retired last week as chief scientific adviser, who played an enormous part in making that such a great success in the wider sphere of Government scientific policy and was also a great pleasure to work with?

Mr. Hunt: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the five years of distinguished service that Sir William Stewart gave as chief scientific adviser to the Government and as head of the Office of Science and Technology. His vision and leadership were instrumental in the successful establishment of the Office of Science and Technology and, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the publication of the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", which was so well received both within and outside the scientific community. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend during his time in office.

Mr. Battle: May I make it clear that Labour welcomes technology foresight in principle and the reports so far? We would urge the Government to enhance and carry the process forward. I ask the Minister, when can we welcome a full debate on science in the Chamber in

Government time to discuss the reports? When will the Government publish practical action plans to implement the proposals of the report? When will other Ministers in other Departments welcome the reports and their recommendations, so that they are not left on the shelf in the Office of Science and Technology and ignored by Ministers in other Departments, as has happened in the past?

Mr. Hunt: I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the technology foresight exercise. I pay tribute to the many people who have played a part in bringing about what I believe to be one of the most innovative programmes ever to have taken place in this country. Of course, he will know what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have already said about carrying forward the technology foresight message. The Government recognise the importance of science, engineering and technology. That is reflected in our response to the whole technology foresight exercise.

Citizens Charter

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable. [26056]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): The citizens charter is continuing to raise the standard of public service. Although the charter as a whole is not legally enforceable, certain provisions in specific charters are backed by legislation.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that to widen the areas where the charter would be legally enforceable need not be unduly onerous in public spending terms?

Mr. Horam: Yes, that is certainly true. It need not involve any further public expenditure. What I would be concerned about is losing flexibility. We have increased credibility for the particular charters and some legislative backing in, for example, the parents charter, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. We shall continue to evolve in that direction. He will notice that more and more adjudicators have been appointed—for example, for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. They are bridging the gap between legal enforcement and strong voluntary enforcement.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he can shout and bawl as much as he likes about the values and virtues of the Government's citizens charter because in the background there is another citizen, the ex-Prime Minister Lady Thatcher, who has marked the Government's record and their own charter and does not think that it adds up to a row of beans?

Mr. Horam: I do not think that the House would readily agree that I was a shouter and a bawler.

Charter Mark

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes of service have been monitored in the public services since the introduction of the charter mark. [26058]

Mr. Horam: There have been a large number of measurable improvements since the introduction of the charter mark. One charter mark winner that I visited recently, a housing benefits department, has increased customer satisfaction to 97 per cent., improved its productivity level and saved more than £2 million through improved fraud detection.

Mr. Fabricant: That is an encouraging answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents welcome the fact that when they telephone Government Departments, telephones are answered more quickly, they can find out the names of the people to whom they speak, and pamphlets are issued in English that they can understand? Does my hon. Friend agree that the constant carping and criticism from Labour Members implies that they have no desire to improve the standard of public services?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a revolution in public services in terms of waiting times, politeness, openness and all those aspects, although I confess that we still have a little further to go in terms of plain English.

Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister given any consideration to having a negative charter mark for organisations which do not give any satisfaction? If so, what sort of negative charter mark should be given to the most discredited and unpopular Government since records began? Does the hon. Gentleman now regret joining the Tory party after so many years in the Labour party when his current party is going to lose the next election and he will certainly he out of a job?

Mr. Horam: I am delighted to be a member of an Administration who have the best economic performance that I can remember and who have improved public services beyond the imagination of the Opposition, rather than an Administration who let inflation rip and came to an end in the tragic farce of the winter of discontent.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the growing popularity of the charter mark is shown by the fact that, last year, there were some 20,000 inquiries about it and some 500 firm applications? Is there scope for extending the charter mark system to organisations such as one in my constituency called the Blacon project, which is an outstanding community partnership between the local authority, the local community and the voluntary sector?

Mr. Horam: That is an interesting suggestion, which I shall consider.

Standards in Public Life

27. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to implement the Nolan recommendations. [26059]

Mr. David Hunt: The Government welcome the broad thrust of the Nolan recommendations in so far as they affect the Government and we are now considering a detailed response.

Mr. MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public concern that just four of the Conservative Members of Parliament chosen to serve on the proposed House of Commons Committee hold 23 paid directorships or consultancies between them? Is not that concern

reflected in the Gallup opinion poll reported in The Daily Telegraph today, showing that nine out of 10 members of the public do not want Members of Parliament to take any outside payment of any sort?
As the Minister responsible for appointments to quangos, what will the right hon. Gentleman do now, before the Committee reports, to ensure that future quango appointments are not part of the Tory fund-raising operation?

Mr. Hunt: The Nolan report concluded that there was no substance to many of the allegations that have been thrown around. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. I hope that this House can now get on with setting up the relevant Committee to look into the way in which this House should respond to the Nolan recommendations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for single organisations to write cheques for £4,000 apiece—cash for votes—for the election expenses of many of our political opponents? Does he further agree that it would make sense for Members of Parliament to judge their own conduct by what I call the local newspaper test—if they are doing something that they would not want reported in the local newspaper, either they should not do it or they should tell the local newspaper?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises some important points, which I hope Labour Members will consider carefully. I read some speculation somewhere that at a recent Labour party conference—which seemed to be an awful lot of something about nothing—Labour said that it was looking into its links with the trade unions. I hope that it does so and comes forward quickly with recommendations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the huge public support for the Nolan recommendations—all the answers to all the questions showing eight or nine people out of 10 supporting them—does the right hon. Gentleman think that for the Government to propose for the implementing Committee a group of people who are not only not all senior Conservative Members of the House, but clearly have a vested interest in a result that will allow hon. Members to continue being sponsored from outside the House, exactly confirms the public prejudice that we are always trying to look after ourselves first and the public second?
Why did not the Government propose Members of Parliament with no outside interests, so that there could be a clearly impartial decision reflecting the view of the public that we need to sweep away the old order and bring in a far more free-from-interest order in accord with the public view of the day?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should read and reflect on the report in full. He would then realise that it states that many of the allegations that have been thrown around have been found to have no substance. It is a fundamental recommendation of the Nolan committee that Members of Parliament should be free to continue with outside interests. That was a specific recommendation. Of course the House must carefully consider the Nolan recommendations, but that is a matter for the House and not for me.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he sensible to ask the Nolan committee to look into the corruption and malpractice in so many Labour-run local authorities—in particular, the incompetence in the social services department in Islington when it was run by a lady who has now escaped to the Labour Benches, the employment of illegal immigrants in Hackney, and the employment of a teacher in Lambeth even though he is a trade union leader?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members will never be taken seriously until all of them give up every penny of trade union sponsorship both for themselves and for their constituency parties?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has issued an important challenge to Labour Members. I know that there is increasing concern about the way local government is being administered in certain parts of the country. My hon. Friend's voice will have been heard and the supportive reaction that he received noted. Indeed, the Nolan committee has already said that local government will be an area for further inquiry; no doubt my hon. Friend's remarks will be taken into account when it meets to consider taking further steps.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the comments made by the Chancellor's hon. Friends this afternoon, will he reconsider the Government's opposition to the proposal that the Nolan committee should look into party political funding? Would it not be helpful to everyone to have that inquiry brought forward and held as quickly as possible?
The Minister is directly responsible for appointments to quangos and he has said this afternoon that he fully supports Nolan's recommendations on that issue. He also made that clear in a debate six weeks ago. What steps has he taken to implement the Nolan committee's recommendations about appointments to quangos? What is he doing about those who hold office on quangos who were not appointed on merit? Will he give an assurance, in the spirit of Nolan, that Ministers have stopped packing quangos with Tory nominees?

Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Lady would read the Nolan report, as it clearly labels as untrue each and every one of the allegations that she has just made. The report says that there is no evidence of such packing. There is no evidence that people are appointed on anything other than merit. It is about time she reflected on the recommendations and words of the Nolan report, rather than trying to invent allegations which cannot be proved. We have put forward our policies very clearly. We have already laid out our response to the recommendations in the debate in this House. We are now preparing our detailed response, which will be published as soon as possible.

Market Testing

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress the Government are making with their market-testing programme. [26060]

Mr. Horam: As our announcement in January on the "Competing for Quality" programme showed, progress has been very good. By September 1994, £2 billion of activities had been looked at and annual savings of more than £400 million identified. New figures will be available shortly.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not contrast starkly with Labour party

policy, which seems to be against such efficiency savings? Indeed, as a result, the Labour party seems to be in favour of inefficiency and therefore higher taxation. What savings does my hon. Friend estimate we are likely to make in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Horam: Until September, we are tackling a programme worth about £860 million. At the current rate of saving of about 20 per cent., that should yield—if my arithmetic is right—savings of about £170 million for the taxpayer.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister look at the way in which the issue is being raised in the health service? Will he look closely at the decision of an industrial tribunal in Birmingham today? The transfer of a particular contract from one part of the health service to another has been found to be unlawful in the European Court because of the rules on the transfer of undertakings. When will the Government recognise that the exercise does not take into account the long term but looks only at certain so-called efficiency savings without considering the total cost and the dismantling of organisations such as the national health service.

Mr. Horam: The programme does take account of the long term. Clearly, it is beginning to be a long-term factor. It started in the late 1980s and has carried on successfully over the years. If the hon. Lady would care to give me details of the specific example that she mentioned, I will certainly look into it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is there any reason why in-house bids should not be acceptable, particularly, for example, in the running of pension funds?

Mr. Horam: It is normal practice to accept in-house bids. Only in very rare circumstances, where expertise is not available in-house, are in-house bids not accepted. I assure my hon. Friend of that.

Government Policy

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent his Government responsibilities include overseeing and co-ordinating the presentation of Government policy. [26061]

Mr. David Hunt: I chair the relevant Cabinet Committee.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it true that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has sent minutes to the Prime Minister and sought to counsel him about the political and electoral consequences of the enormous rate of negative equity, especially in the south-east of England? In making those representations, has the Chancellor also drawn to the Prime Minister's attention the human cost of the anxiety suffered by millions of people enduring negative equity and the consequences for enterprise because people cannot borrow to start new businesses? What do the Government intend to do about the problems of negative equity to lift the burden from the people who suffer it?

Mr. Hunt: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the Government are responsible for a sustained period of non-inflationary growth and a background in economic statistics that we have not seen for many generations. Of course, we are aware of the difficulties faced by some individuals. My right hon.
Friends have announced a series of measures designed to counteract that. The Government's sound policies take precedence over presentation. After last weekend, it is clear that, for Labour, presentation comes first.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in presenting Government policies, the Government seek to promote Britain in the best light and to promote pride in being British, rather than to sell Britain down the river as that lot over there on the Opposition Benches would, with minimum wages and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs?

Mr. Hunt: In the words of the deputy leader of the Labour party, any silly fool should know that that would

be the consequence of the Labour party's policies, which my hon. Friend has just set out. Apparently, the Labour party last weekend decided to say anything about nothing and nothing about anything. The party without a leader is becoming the leader without a party.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his reply to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Parliamentary Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he said that in-house applications for tenders for services that were about to be privatised would normally be accepted. In fact, in many cases they are not even allowed to tender. In the case of the civil service pension scheme, which is of major importance, it appears that the President of the Board of Trade is not allowing any in-house tenders.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, which is of some delicacy, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday 27 June, BBC Scotland and a programme called "Scottish Lobby" propose to have parliamentary awards. I do not know whether it is proper for the BBC to award Members of Parliament parliamentary awards according to criteria decided by the BBC. It is a matter of some concern when the Office of Speaker becomes involved. It is understood that you, Madam Speaker, are going to present the awards. I earnestly ask for reflection as to whether, with all the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons, your Office should be involved—perhaps without any sort of judgment by the Speaker—in awarding awards to parliamentarians on a pretty invidious basis. Whatever the basis, you have to be above such battles.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has written to me on more than one occasion about the matter. As with a number of issues that he pursues, the hon. Gentleman has pursued this one with me now for more than four weeks. I have taken sound advice from many of his colleagues, particularly from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who leads for the Opposition on Scottish matters, as well as from many other colleagues. I am not adjudicating, but I consider it to be a privilege and honour simply to make the presentation to one or two of my colleagues on whichever side of the House they may sit.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise in view of the developments over the weekend on trading in PowerGen shares. I am aware that the Financial Secretary made a statement to the House on Friday afternoon. In view of the growing seriousness of the issues raised, particularly in relation to the Treasury's role, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached you, Madam Speaker, to say that he is prepared to appear before the House to make a statement on those serious matters?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady indicated, the Minister did not make a statement on Friday; I allowed a private notice question. I have not heard since that any Minister is seeking to make a statement.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could we have a further investigation of Welsh questions? I appreciate that we have asked you to investigate that in the past, but after today, I think that it is necessary that the matter should be looked at again. I am complaining not for myself because I was fortunate enough to be called to ask a supplementary question, but because hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies and who tabled questions failed to be called today.
Today, eight Labour Members were called, with four Conservative Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies and one Liberal Democrat who does not

represent a Welsh constituency. Five hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies were called compared with eight who do. That is out of 38 Welsh Members. We have the opportunity to ask questions only once a month and surely that right should be given to Welsh constituencies and Welsh Members.
I notice that that does not happen in Scottish questions, for some unknown reason. Therefore, I suggest that we look yet again at the matter. Perhaps the Government Whip who deals with Welsh matters could persuade his colleagues not to use up the time that Welsh Members should have to ask Welsh questions.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member appreciates, I deal with Welsh questions in the same way that I deal with Scottish questions. This is, of course, a United Kingdom Parliament and when hon. Members from any part of the House table questions, they will be called to put them and called for supplementaries if they should rise.
I have noticed today that we have not moved as quickly as we normally do with Welsh questions. To some extent, that is because we tend to get long questions and we get long answers, too. If they were much more brisk, we would make further progress and the hon. Gentleman would be much happier than he is at the present time, although I see him with his usual smile on his face.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no inside information about who will get the Scottish parliamentary awards but I have some suggestions. Would it not be preferable if you were to nominate one or two Scottish Members to give awards for the journalists in the Gallery? It would not be proper for those who do not manage to stay for Adjournment debates on Scottish sewage and other such matters to be considered in that respect. It would be much more fun for us to adjudicate for once on the qualities, persistence and abilities of those who spend so much of their time telling us what we ought to be doing.

Madam Speaker: I could agree to the hon. Member's suggestion only if those nominated worked 12 or 14-hour days in that Gallery and stayed to the very end.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Don Foster, Sir David Knox, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. George Walden, presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985 so as to prevent certain potential abuses of electoral registration, proxy voting and overseas electors' declarations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.
It is just over a year since the House last considered whether to renew for a further year the principal provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It was a wise measure to provide for the renewal of these temporary provisions every year if they are to survive.
I will, for the only time today, indulge in a quotation from what I said in last year's debate—it is a short one:
The Act needs to achieve a balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and providing condign measures against terrorists and the organisations that sustain them."—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 267.]
I think it right to acknowledge at the beginning that exceptional measures of this kind, enacted in the first place in order to meet exceptional threats to life and liberty, tend to develop an adhesive quality of their own—that is to say, they are more likely to stick than to be dropped as time goes by. It is easier to react to a sudden crisis by imposing such measures than it is to acquire sufficient confidence to surrender them in response to an improvement in the scene. Members of Parliament and Ministers in particular need to remind themselves of that truth. Circumstances do change and, happily, in Northern Ireland they have, in the past 12 months, changed dramatically for the better, as I shall illustrate. So it behoves us all, I suggest, to examine carefully whether, in the new circumstances, the former balance needs adjusting or whether it still needs to be maintained.
I want it to be known in the House and outside that, in proposing the renewal of these provisions for a further year, I accept that the burden of proof rests with me. It is right to speak and to think of "the new circumstances" rather than of "today's circumstances". There is a danger, if we think only of what things are like today, that we may not give sufficient thought for what, on the basis of such objective evidence as is available, they foreseeably might be like tomorrow and what they foreseeably might be like next month. No one can be sure what will happen, of course; we can only go by outward and visible signs of other people's true intentions and then try to interpret them sensibly. In other words, like insurers, we have to assess the risks for the people for whom we are responsible. That is a concept and a duty to which I shall return.
What are the new circumstances? They are as dramatic as they are welcome—and overdue. More than nine months have now gone by since what has come to be known as the republican ceasefire and nearly eight months since its loyalist counterpart. Many factors have, doubtless, contributed to the ceasefires. Foremost among them, to which the whole House will wish to pay tribute, are the extraordinary courage and steadfastness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces, and the staunchness of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
We should remind ourselves, however, of the hideous terrorist crimes committed in 1994 alone, before the ceasefires occurred. For if present circumstances suggest

that a reversion to violence is being retained as an option, those are the kind of crimes that may again be perpetrated. Those are the crimes from which it is our duty to protect the public, as best we may. From January to June 1994, republican groups murdered 17 people and loyalists 27. I shall cite just three instances, each horrific and each leaving a trail of bereavement and pain.
On 13 May last year, the Provisional IRA murdered a civilian cleaner in his car as he was driving with his family in Lurgan. His three-year-old daughter, Emma, was blown out of the car and severely injured. On 18 June, loyalist gunmen walked into a bar in Loughinisland where people were watching the World cup on television. They sprayed automatic gunfire into the crowd, murdering six people including an 87-year-old man. In August, Mr. Telford Withers, a part-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldier, was murdered in his shop at Crossgar by a gunman. None of those crimes, nor any of similar character that preceded them, never mind by whom they were committed, should ever be forgotten.
Foremost among the new circumstances, however, is the fact that, since the ceasefires, terrorist activity has markedly diminished. People throughout the Province are relishing a return to what the rest of us have always called normality, yet which so very many of them have never experienced in their lives. Yet I cannot say that there has been no major terrorist atrocity since then; there has been. In November last year, Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Newry, was attacked and brutally shot dead in an armed robbery. He was fighting to prevent the theft of public money. That crime was planned and executed by the Provisional IRA organisation in South Armagh. Some £130,000 was stolen, and although central authority within the Provisional IRA denied authorising the raid—and implied disapproval of it—none of the money has been returned.
Since the ceasefires, in Enniskillen, Newry and—most recently—Belfast, a total of four viable explosive devices have been found, fortunately before they could go off. Had they done so, the toll in life, limb and property could have been terrible. In no way should the Government or the House distinguish between such crimes according to whether republicans or so-called loyalists commit them. It matters not to the victim, and we have to judge how best to protect potential victims in future by means of legislation.
It remains the case that paramilitaries on both sides, and not only the principal organisations, are still engaging in terrorist-related activity. Let us look at some examples. Both sides seek money, and they go after it by robbery, by extortion with intimidation and by the criminal extraction of money from charities, clubs and ostensibly legitimate businesses. They are involved increasingly in the drug trafficking that makes the lives of so many young people wretched. For no less political motives, they are engaged in other criminally violent activities, too. In particular, they continue to seek to impose their will on communities by threats, intimidation and brutal beatings. Indeed, from 31 August until the end of May, there were 131 horrific so-called punishment attacks. Sixty-two of them have been attributed to loyalists, including 13 shootings before the loyalist ceasefire. Sixty-nine have been attributed to republicans.
Threats and intimidation often accompany those attacks. The thugs who perpetrate those sickening crimes often use baseball bats, clubs and cudgels with protruding


nails to beat their victims' limbs and torsos, smashing their bones and wrecking their internal organs. The attacks are capped with threats of death if the victims tell the RUC. Additionally, people are forced to leave their homes and neighbourhoods on pain of death by shooting. Others are ordered to remain away. Some voluntary groups fear that the number of people excluded from their homes by those wicked means may run into hundreds.
Neither ought we to forget that there remain other organisations—equally deadly—which do not subscribe to the ceasefires. The INLA, which has carried out some of the most appalling atrocities of the past 25 years, has not mounted any attacks since the ceasefires commenced but has not yet declared a ceasefire of its own. The threat that the INLA poses was aptly demonstrated on 4 April, when the Gardai intercepted a van and a car north of Dublin containing four suspected senior INLA members, and recovered six automatic rifles, 20 pistols and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition. That the arms were destined for Northern Ireland is beyond doubt. We can only speculate on whether and where they were to be used.
The INLA is not the only such group. Republican Sinn Fein has vowed to oppose the Provisional IRA ceasefire and to mount attacks in Northern Ireland. The threat that it poses is taken very seriously indeed, both by the RUC and by the Gardai. Only last month, the Gardai arrested six men and a woman following the discovery of arms in Dublin. All seven are suspected to have connections with Republican Sinn Fein, and have since been charged with firearms offences.
Consistent with all that terrorist activity, terrorist organisations on both sides continue to train teams for operations, to research improvised weapons, to identify potential targets and—crucially—to maintain undiminished their stock of weapons and explosives.
I take no perverse—or any—pleasure in telling the House about all this. Sometimes Ministers are upbraided for going on about it and spoiling the party. "Move the peace process forward," we are told. The implication is that we should ignore it all, or view it indulgently. To contrast it with the professed assurance that peace has come for good is said to be unhelpful. But what is really needed to move the peace process forward is the ending of actions that rupture or menace the peace. Otherwise, how are those who question the compatibility of those activities with professions of peace to be reassured? More immediately, how are we in the House to be reassured, who have to assess the risk to the lives of those for whom we in this United Kingdom Parliament are responsible?

Mr. David Winnick: I believe that the peace process should be advanced, and the Secretary of State will no doubt accept that we all deplore the crimes to which he has referred. Violence and thuggery can never be justified under any circumstances.
Will the Secretary of State concede that the organisation that was established in 1970 with the sole aim of driving Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom through force of every kind, including violence and the terrible atrocities that were committed mainly in Northern Ireland but also in places such as Birmingham, simply did not succeed? It was the will of the House and of the country as a whole that that violence should not be

victorious. Therefore, when the IRA announced in August-September last year the end of its campaign of violence, it was a victory against terrorism.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The IRA certainly did not succeed and it has not advanced very much in 25 years. However, I am afraid that many thousands of people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere look at the maintenance of weapons and explosives and see that as incompatible with the profession that peace is here for good. They hope that peace is here for good and they take note of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said, but they also take note of the activities that I itemised a few minutes ago.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I was a very close friend of Mr. Frank Kerr and I do not like Mr. Kerr's death being used as part of a political argument. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the peace process to which he refers is one that he himself has helped to advance by removing exclusion orders as they applied to people coming into England, Scotland and Wales; that he himself has helped to advance by ordering the opening of border roads; that he himself has helped to advance by meeting with the leader of Sinn Fein; and that he himself has helped to advance through the Minister of State's entering into formal party discussions with the leader of Provisional Sinn Fein and those who represent the loyalist paramilitary groupings?
One of the problems that some of us have is: how can one be half in and half out of a peace process? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity today to explain to those who have that difficulty how one can be half in and half out of a process that the Secretary of State has, to his credit, helped to sustain?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can give very readily to the hon. Gentleman, who has a most worthy record in those matters, the justification that he seeks. Those matters with which he began his list resulted from the advice of the Chief Constable, my principal security adviser, that it was now possible to open the border roads and to lift exclusion orders in the light of a diminution in the threat. The same goes for a whole raft of other measures that have been taken and with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is very willing to deal if need be at a later stage.
However, it is a very different matter if I am then asked to enter into negotiations with a party that is associated with a paramilitary organisation which is retaining its hold upon its armaments and which has used them in the past to sustain its party's political objective.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. As an eminent lawyer, he must realise that today he is about to renew legislation that will effect the closure of border roads at the same time as he has given instructions for the opening of border roads. Does he accept the wider point that, at the same time as renewing the legislation, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are affecting us in many ways by operating as Saatchi and Saatchi for the Provisional Sinn Fein? Since peace has been called, they have kept those people on the front pages of every newspaper and in the lead stories of


every news bulletin for up to nine months. Will he explain to those of us who have fought against the operations of the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groupings for more than 30 years, how that can be equated with his refusal not to renew the legislation?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If I am allowed to continue, I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House the need, as insurance, to retain the provisions. We have not formed that judgment alone and unaided, but with the benefit of the advice of an independent reviewer of the operation of the Act over the past year, Mr. John Rowe QC. Had I and the Government agreed to enter into negotiations with Sinn Fein, as we are happy to do with other parties—including the hon. Gentleman's party—which have never been tarnished with any association with paramilitary violence, that would have left his party in a dangerous position, as Sinn Fein would have been able to say, with the support of the Provisional IRA, that tactics such as they have employed actually secured political advance. That would have left the hon. Gentleman's party, which has always subjected itself to the discipline of constitutional politics, in a dangerous position and a most undeserved one.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must continue.
I should like to outline the principal ways in which, in the past four years, the Act has delivered the greater part of Parliament's legislative response to the terrorist threat from both sides, and to view those provisions in the light of the new circumstances.
Part I of the Act creates the so-called scheduled offences, which are offences commonly committed by terrorists, requiring special treatment as regards bail, remands, trial, evidence, sentence and the remission of sentence. They are tried by judge alone in the so-called Diplock courts.
Part II makes special provision for powers to stop, to arrest, to search and to seize property. Part III creates special offences against public security and order, including directing terrorist offences and belonging to such an organisation. Part IV provides for detention by order, otherwise known as detention. That power is currently suspended.
Part VI makes special provision in respect of persons in police custody under the terrorism provisions for their management and their questioning in holding centres such as Castlereagh.
Part VII makes special provision for the confiscation of proceeds of terrorist activities and for specially authorised investigators.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall continue with my speech a little longer, if I may.
I do not propose to rehearse today the details of the provisions. They are well described in the latest report of the independent reviewer, Mr. Rowe, presented in May this year.
The Act represents a wide spectrum of special provisions, and it is right that its operation from year to year should be independently reviewed. In addition to Mr.

Rowe's report, the House has the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, whom I appointed two years ago as an independent commissioner to review the operation of the holding centres. I am grateful to each of those distinguished gentlemen and to the deputy commissioner for the holding centres, Dr. Bill Norris, for their work. Dr. Norris has made over 80 unannounced visits to the holding centres.
Mr. Rowe, after wide consultation and dispassionate assessment of the evidence, concludes that it is necessary to renew each section of the Act currently in force for a further year. His judgment concurs with our own. We consider that the continuing terrorist-related activity that I mentioned leaves us no prudent alternative, although the special powers that the Act provides are being used less and less, I am glad to say. The latent threat remains, and in our judgment, the Act itself remains necessary for the time being.
Mr. Rowe recommends, however, that during the coming year the Act should be kept under review with a view to using the powers in section 69 to suspend individual provisions. We are happy to accept that wholeheartedly.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Appendix A on page 61 of the Rowe report gives the list of persons and organisations who gave assistance in discussion and representation. One is the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. As the Secretary of State knows—although this was not his doing—the secretariat was designed to be a joint instrument of the two Governments. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the basis on which the secretariat gave oral and written evidence and what it conveyed?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a good question to ask Mr. Rowe, but I do not know the answer at the moment.
When, on advice, I consider that a particular provision is no longer necessary, I shall not hesitate to invite the House to approve an order suspending it. The suspension could be reversed at any time if necessary. After all, it is the Government's aim to remove those provisions altogether in due course—but Mr. Rowe concludes, and we agree, that we have not reached that time yet.

Mr. Corbyn: As the Secretary of State is clearly determined to have the order approved today, will he give the House an idea of when he will suspend the section relating to Diplock courts and restore the right of trial by jury, which would be seen as a major contribution to the peace process?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer is: as soon as I am advised that intimidation has diminished to such a degree that it will be safe once again in the North—it remains unsafe in the Republic—to entrust such cases to a jury that will no longer fear intimidation. The original Diplock report dealt with that matter in great thoroughness.
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Mr. Rowe have again advocated the introduction of some kind of electronic recording of interviews with suspects held under the prevention of terrorism Act. In the past, I had to balance the strong arguments in favour of recording against the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC that to introduce any form of electronic recording for terrorism suspects would not be in the overall interests of justice.
The change to the security situation clearly has a bearing on where the balance of advantage now lies. It introduces other factors, too. The number of suspects being questioned about offences connected with terrorism has, since the ceasefire, reduced by some two thirds. Assuming that the continued absence of violence will allow the downward trend to continue, there will, I hope, come a time when the need to use the more rigorous regime afforded by the holding centres will disappear entirely. That will mean that the ordinary Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 procedures will suffice for all suspects. That must be our aim, although we are not there yet.
Having consulted the Chief Constable, however, I can say that, if it still appears necessary to do so at all in the light of the developing security situation, the Government will propose introducing an electronic recording scheme. That will be in the Bill that will be required next Session to replace the present Act. Such a scheme will require statutory provision, because it remains important for arrangements to be in place to prevent tapes from being disclosed by those who might have sinister motives. The House would, of course, have ample opportunity to consider the detail during that Bill's passage.
With the decline in terrorist activity, the use of the holding centres has also diminished. It is my hope that that will continue, although the police will continue vigorously to investigate earlier terrorist crimes, no matter how old—but we are always determined to demonstrate that suspects, who may have been involved in the most horrific of crimes, can have no legitimate fears about ill-treatment. We have in place codes of practice, and since the previous debate it has been agreed that Sir Louis will be able to sit in on the interviews. That should provide another reassurance and safeguard.
Sir Louis once again touches on the material conditions of detention in the holding centres. He continues to believe that the facilities at Castlereagh should not remain in commission any longer than absolutely necessary. I am content with that. However, I believe that it is sensible in the current changing security situation for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to pause and review its overall police building programme. It accepts the need to improve standards of accommodation, as does the RUC. The important question of a replacement for Castlereagh will therefore remain under consideration. Sir Louis makes other recommendations, with which the Minister of State will be able to deal should that be necessary later.
The context of conditions in which persons are held in custody permits me to announce, in respect of convicted prisoners, the enhancement in three respects of a compassionate leave scheme established in Northern Ireland for many years. It has enabled prisoners to maintain family contacts at times of acute domestic difficulty. The arrangements have been of particular importance to a prisoner population the majority of whom serve long sentences.
Over the years, the conditions attaching to those arrangements have been strictly adhered to by prisoners to an impressive degree—including prisoners convicted of the most serious offences—and that has contributed to a wide understanding of and support for the measures among community leaders and the general public in Northern Ireland. All such schemes, however, are capable of improvement, and in its 1995–96 business plan, the Prison Service declared its intention to develop further

opportunities for prisoners to maintain close family ties. A lot of changes to those arrangements have been working successfully now for almost a year and I consider that the time is now right to make further improvements, which I believe will receive widespread support in the community in Northern Ireland.
Accordingly, and with immediate effect, I intend to take three steps. First, the maximum period of compassionate leave that the Prison Service may authorise for attendance at the funeral of a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild is currently 24 hours. In future, the Prison Service will be authorised to permit a period of absence of up to 48 hours, subject to a satisfactory assessment of risk. That will not of course apply automatically in every case. The length of absence will depend on individual circumstances.
Secondly, prisoners may apply for compassionate leave in the event of the serious illness of a parent, child, brother or sister. That may be granted if the Prison Service is satisfied as to the circumstances and the degree of risk. In future, that arrangement will extend to the serious illness of grandparents and grandchildren. It will be for the prisoner or his family to satisfy the Prison Service as to the nature and extent of the illness.
Lastly, prisoners who have served at least 10 years and who have a close relative who has been unable through medical disability to visit the prison for at least 18 months, may currently apply for a short period of compassionate leave. Two such periods may be granted in any one year provided the prisoner presents no undue risk to public safety. The value of that facility has declined with the availability of other forms of leave to prisoners who have served 11 years or more. Yet the scheme has worked well and prisoners have shown willingness to honour its conditions.
Accordingly, I intend to reduce the qualifying length of sentence from 10 years to six years. Those three changes are modest but none the less useful extensions of arrangements that had been working well for prisoners, their families and the public.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: While we are on the subject of prisoners, not least in the light of much media speculation over the past weekend, will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the situation with regard to Private Clegg?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and with the House's permission I shall do so very briefly.
There is no question of any linkage between the case of Private Clegg and any consideration of possible changes to remission rates or other regime changes for prisoners in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Those are matters solely for the British Government to decide. The Life Sentence Review Board met to consider Private Clegg's case, along with several others, on 6 June. I am considering its recommendations, and I shall consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge as necessary.
That is the standard procedure, quasi-judicial in character, which is followed in all life sentence cases. As the law requires, Private Clegg's case will be treated in accordance with that established practice, solely on its


merits. There is no question of one law for the security forces and another for the rest, as Private Clegg's prosecution and conviction plainly demonstrated.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's written responses to questions that I have asked him in the past. As the case has been raised today, can he say when he is likely to make his decision on the recommendation that he says has been sent to him? I ask because of the anguish that Private Clegg and his family are undergoing.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has most assiduously represented the concerns of his constituent. I am not able to give the information that he seeks. As I have said, I shall have to consult. I shall do so with all practical speed.

Mr. Julian Brazier: All of us on the Government Benches welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's robust statement that there is to be no linkage, but will he reassure us none the less that, when it comes to Private Clegg himself, there can be no question of the consultations involving questions being asked about the impact on certain parts of the community of justice being done for this unfortunate soldier?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that that is implicit in what I have said. If it is not, it should be explicit. Those matters will be dealt with not by reference to political expediency, but by reference to the merits of each individual case.
The ceasefires have met with a ready response by the Government. On advice from the Chief Constable, many important relaxations have been made in security measures. Those have already been mentioned in part by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must now conclude my speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with further matters if that is required. I shall not detain the House further now.
I hope that the trend of relaxation can continue, as it will if we are advised that the terrorist threat continues to diminish. I know that that advice will be positive. It will be measured as the gravity of our responsibilities demands.
In the second half of the year, we shall have to make decisions about the legislation that will be necessary to replace the current Act when it expires completely next year. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, there will have
to be a wide-ranging look at all the options
for permanent counter-terrorism organisation once a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your advice. The Secretary of State was good enough to give way to three interventions about the Private Clegg affair. He turned down an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who represented a person who was killed, as was proven in three courts, by Private Clegg. In the

circumstances, do you not feel, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision not to give way to my hon. Friend?

Madam Speaker: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I need not trouble you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Courteous as always. Thank you very much.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).

Dr. Hendron: Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituents and perhaps those of Greater Belfast have been deeply offended, but not so much by the campaign to free Lee Clegg? There are, of course, many campaigns to release prisoners. Instead, they have been offended by the nature of the campaign, involving former brigadiers and colonels and senior politicians. At virtually no time have those people considered in detail what happened on the night when Karen Reilly and Martin Peake were killed.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I recognise that Lee Clegg did not set out to kill someone? But is it not a fact that the Government do not want any other charge save murder—for example, culpable homicide—to be on the statute book in case other soldiers might also find themselves behind bars? I speak as someone who has given a lifetime to opposing paramilitaries on both sides. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the nature of the Clegg campaign is deeply offensive? When he makes his decision, will he assure us that it will not be made on the basis of a campaign that has been joined by people who have never considered the detail of what happened on that fateful night?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently for his constituents. There is nobody better to do that than him. What he has said about the Government's intentions is not consistent with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary having set up an inquiry into the law of murder. I understand that those conducting the inquiry will report within a month or two. I think that I can reject what the hon. Gentleman has said about our intentions. I do not want to say anything more about the circumstances of the Clegg case. It has been litigated in three courts up to the House of Lords and the judgments speak for themselves.
As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the House that there would have to be "a wide-ranging look at all the options"[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 356.]
for permanent counter-terrorism legislation once a lasting peace is established. I can now confirm that the exercise will include a powerful, authoritative and, most importantly, an independent review of the continuing need for the order and the prevention of terrorism Act.
It is a matter for judgment when the conditions would be right to start such a process. Confidence in a lasting peace has still to be established. It is likely—and I regret this—that such a review could not sensibly be mounted in time for its conclusions to influence the successor Act. If that does prove to be the case, I undertake that next Session's Bill, some of the provisions of which may from


the outset be suspended, will be explicitly temporary and will have a shorter maximum lifespan than the five years of the present Act.
I profoundly hope that the time will soon come when the emergency legislation will have finally served its purpose, as I anticipated in December 1992, in a speech that I made in Coleraine. I hold to all that I said there, in a speech that was quite widely noticed. Much has been achieved, far more than a year ago seemed attainable so soon. Today, I acknowledge the contributions of all who have brought that about.
The exploratory dialogue that we are conducting with Sinn Fein and the two loyalist parties offers a means of leading to the achievement of much more, but a terrorist threat, regrettably, still remains. The Government are not going to drop their guard prematurely. There is too much at stake for that. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by saying that the Labour party concurs with a great deal of the analysis of the present situation that the Secretary of State has just presented. Our interpretation and judgment, however, leads us to slightly different conclusions about the future of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1989.
I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has taken so far in response to the improvements in the security situation in Northern Ireland. In a sense, he underplayed his hand this afternoon in terms of the number of changes that he has felt able to introduce, and the dramatic improvements in security. I shall not bother the House with listing them, but he did himself a disservice by not acknowledging the steps that he has taken.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge our agreement on the announcement that the Secretary of State made this afternoon about changes in compassionate leave for prisoners, as that is a step that we welcome very much. I was hoping to welcome with great gusto the announcement that there would be electronic recording at the holding centre in Castlereagh. I am disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to say only that that will be put in train in the next Session. He also said that he would be looking at section 69 of the Act, to change certain powers that are already in the EPA. I am sad that electronic recordings will not be in place during the summer, when and if the holding centres are used, because they would make a difference immediately. We would have welcomed a more speedy implementation of the possible use of electronic recordings at the Castlereagh holding centre.
I shall not repeat the history that the Secretary of State went through in terms of the violence and the changes that we have seen from nine months ago, but with respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I want to acknowledge—not in a political way—the death of Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Armagh, because his is the main death since the peace process was introduced. It is incumbent on us to put on record, for his family, our feelings of sorrow, which his family will have felt.
I would like to reinforce the point that was made about the appalling punishment beatings and attacks that have continued. There have been 131 since last September, and, as has been outlined, they are the result of activities by all sets of paramilitaries.
It is important that we remember the exact nature of those attacks, because 16-year-old Malakey Clarke cited his punishment beating in his subsequent suicide note. We should not forget Michelle Kinkead, who was driven out of Northern Ireland after her husband was killed.
We must also think of the families who are still waiting to know what happened to the bodies of loved ones who have disappeared over the years. They have not been mentioned so far. Margaret McKiney, whom I saw in Belfast last week, was still waiting for news of her son Brian, who disappeared many years ago at the age of 22. It would give her great peace of mind if she could at least bury him now: that would make a difference to her, and the same applies to many other parents, families and friends whose loved ones are still missing.
Let me emphasise that, if advances are to be made, the punishment beatings must stop. There is no justification, in a democratic, civilised society, for taking the law into one's own hands. Sixty people were killed last year, and 84 the year before that; but remarkable progress is now being made. We congratulate members of both Governments and, in particular, the communities in Northern Ireland who have shown such determination and courage in taking the peace process forward.
I also pay tribute to the Army and the police, who are adapting to the new circumstances. It is not always realised that everyone must adapt to change. We should not forget, however, that more than 297 members of the security forces have been killed and 7,000 injured. Is there any way in which the Government can introduce greater flexibility to the system of assessing compensation for members of the security forces who are injured by terrorist violence, especially when off duty? The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised that point in an Adjournment debate last week, and I think that the House would welcome such a change.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Lady prepared to include victims of the Chinook disaster in what she has said, given the Government's abominable announcement that some of the widows will not even receive a year and a half's worth of their husbands' pay in compensation?

Ms Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, having read in the newspapers about the levels of compensation that have been offered. I am reticent, not about the principle, but only because I do not always believe everything that I read in the newspapers. As I have not been given a detailed report of exactly what those families are receiving, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a carte blanche guarantee. No one who has read the reports concerning some of the wives of folk who were in the Chinook could help agreeing with him, but we shall wait to hear what the Minister says when he replies to the debate.
Before the announcements of the ceasefires in August and October last year—there was no doubt of the progress towards a stable peace settlement, and Opposition Members welcomed that—we had always registered our opposition to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 during debates in the House. Over the years, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the unfortunate ritual nature of the renewal debates.
Our reasons for opposing the EPA in recent years have been stated clearly and concisely, more often than not by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Along with others, he has argued that section 34—the internment provision—gives the state, or the Executive, an unacceptable power to imprison without either charge or trial, and that the Government have ignored proposals from their own advisers for reforms in regard to such matters as access to legal advice for those in holding centres and the procedure for certifying in rather than out in the case of scheduled offences.
Our opposition has been based on the fact that numerous sections of the Act have upset the delicate balance between fighting terrorism and protecting basic civil rights. We have questioned whether in principle it works and whether the curtailment of civil rights, and the anger and suspicion that it has created for many innocent families, have been outweighed by its success as part of the fight against terrorism.
Not only Opposition Members have asked those questions. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), expressed worry in the debate in 1993, when he pointed out that the objectives of defeating terrorism
are the same objectives as Governments of all parties have had… But the plain fact is that, despite the lengthy passage of time, the objectives have not been achieved; nor is there any sign whatever of their being achieved."—[Official Report, 8 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 168–69.]
The Secretary of State took note of those arguments and, during the debate in 1994, acknowledged exactly the argument that I am making. He acknowledged the need to maintain the essential fairness of the law recognising,
among other considerations, that unfair law, perceived to be oppressive, does not gain public acceptance and soon becomes law that works against its purpose."—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 263.]
The situation in Northern Ireland has changed and, one hopes, will continue to change. We believe that that necessitates us looking afresh at such legislation as the EPA.
The Secretary of State acknowledged this afternoon that in Coleraine in 1992 he stated:
In the event of a genuine and established cessation of violence, the whole range of responses that we have had to make to that violence could, and would, inevitably be looked at afresh … Similarly, the emergency legislation on which many of these responses are founded would have served its purpose. Normality could return.
The Secretary of State quoted to us this afternoon J. J. Rowe, whose independent review of the EPA he quoted to support the position that he has adopted. One must draw attention to the fact that it was published in February 1994, so does not take into account the totality of what we have experienced in the past nine months. J. J. Rowe himself said in his report:
"His recommendations do not, therefore, take full account of the new situation which these events created, nor of the Government's working assumption that the ceasefires are intended to be permanent".
Our opposition to the EPA historically could have been more fully expressed if we had been able to amend the order. It has always been a question of renewal or abandonment; as a result, we have opposed. If we could

have a reasoned amendment selected to abandon or suspend parts of the Bill, keep others, strengthen yet others, I believe that we would do so. That option has not been open to us.
For example, colleagues in my position in previous years have said that they wanted to keep parts of the EPA on the statute book, especially those sections, such as section 28 in conjunction with schedule 2, that proscribe certain organisations, and those sections, such as sections 53 and 54 and section 57 and schedule 5, which provide additional powers to combat racketeering and fraud associated with terrorism. We have always argued in favour of those in relation to the EPA, and have been in the difficult and problematic position that we had to accept the whole thing or abandon it.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am relatively new to the House and I may be naive, but I understood that the reason why the Labour party opposed the EPA was that large numbers of hon. Members on the Benches behind the hon. Lady refused to support the Labour party when it asked them either to abstain or to vote with the Government on the EPA in the early 1980s. Is that not the case?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Naive.

Ms Mowlam: "Naive," say my colleagues behind me. Mr. Robathan: Better to be naive than dishonest.

Ms Mowlam: No; I am being very honest with the hon. Gentleman. I am saying directly to him that there has been an argument from the Opposition Benches because we have been confronted with a difficult position. Some Opposition Members are, and have been, opposed in principle because they consider that the EPA is a violation of civil rights, that the balance has been turned over and that innocent families are affected.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way? Ms Mowlam: May I just finish? Is that all right?
In that sense, some people have been opposed in principle and others have said, whether about proscription or about fraud and racketeering, that they would like to retain certain provisions in the Bill. Because of the way in which legislation is introduced—every year on the renewal one can either vote for or against—contradictions have been pointed out, not just from the Labour Benches but from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We have discussed the matter in the party, being the democratic party that we are, and on balance have adopted our present position. That is a clear and honest answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Godman: I apologise to my hon. Friend for being over-eager in intervening. Surely the implementation of a measure such as this should not encourage police officers to act in a rough-handed way at our airports when dealing with bona fide travellers from Northern Ireland? Not so very long ago at Glasgow airport, a group of Northern Ireland political party representatives were treated in a grossly discourteous manner when on their way to attend a conference in Glasgow. Among their number were a


certain Mr. Ian Paisley junior, Councillor McGimpsey, Brendan Mackie and David Ervine. They were treated in a disgraceful way by police officers at Glasgow airport.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a good example of the point that I was trying to make, which was that the difficulty is that families or individuals who have not in any way been directly connected to terrorism have been faced with harassment at ports. It causes a great deal of anger in the Irish community, both in England and across the water, among families who are innocent and whose lives have been affected by the EPA. That is one of the difficult balancing acts that we have always had to take into account.
Having explained in detail to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the position with which we have been faced historically—

Mr. Robathan: That is difficult.

Ms Mowlam: It is not difficult. I can do it with no problems. I appreciate his sympathy but let me reassure him that it is not difficult for me. I should like now, however, clearly to acknowledge that the position has changed in the way that the Secretary of State has analysed. Our judgment on that change, however, is that a response is now possible that is more in tune with the present changing situation in Northern Ireland. Let me just give a couple of examples of how things could be responded to differently.
The Secretary of State mentioned using powers under section 69 of the Act to introduce orders to suspend—to put in reserve—different parts of the EPA which are already covered by existing criminal law. In particular, section 17 of the Act, which applies to arrest powers for scheduled offences, could now be put in reserve for the simple reason that, if so needs be, it can be reintroduced, as the Secretary of State announced, over 24 hours. There are powers under existing legislation—the Northern Ireland provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—to address the powers given in section 17. That would be a positive aspect to returning to normality which would not destabilise the picture that the Secretary of State painted.
In other areas where changes cannot be made with immediate effect, we would like changes to be set in progress now. Let me give just one example. The Diplock courts were mentioned earlier. We clearly recognise the difficulties in making the transition to full-jury trials, especially while the intimidation, punishment beatings and attacks continue, but we want the transition from Diplock to a jury system to operate in parallel with effective protection measures for jurors and witnesses. An immediate and important step that would signal a commitment to change would be to move to certifying in rather than certifying out of scheduled offences.
We recognise that the use of holding centres is now limited, but it would be helpful if, as the Secretary of State mentioned, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper were able to go in on particular interviews. The establishment of an independent legal unit at the holding centres would be an important step in ensuring that everything there functioned according to the rule of law.
In his speech, the Secretary of State said that he might in the months ahead operate certain powers and schedules in the Act, such as those that I have mentioned, by using

schedule 69. I obviously welcome that, but it is sad that we cannot have such an announcement this afternoon in the House—an open, democratic debating forum—rather than action being taken by the Secretary of State in the months ahead. One or two steps could have been taken that would have made a difference.

Mr. Hunter: I was reflecting on the hon. Lady's statements about the phased reintroduction of jury trials, but is not the reality the on-going intimidation of witnesses? Does she not acknowledge that we are still a long way from being sure that jurors would not also be intimidated?

Ms Mowlam: I accept that intimidation of witnesses and jurors is a problem and that there is some difficulty with cases going through the courts while intimidation beatings and attacks are happening. However, we have to deal with that problem. My suggestion is that, if protection measures for jurors and witnesses are put in place in the months ahead, we could make a start on dismantling the Diplock system and extending jury trials into areas where historically they have not been available.
In the short term, like certifying in and certifying out of scheduled offences, it is a move in the right direction. I am not suggesting a great leap into the unknown, but rather starting a course of action so that in a year's time the House does not say, "Thank goodness there has been a cessation of violence for two years, but we have not put anything in place to reflect that." We want to move things along so that, if and when the cessation of violence has lasted long enough and the punishment beatings have stopped, we can begin to take a more open approach. It is both rational and common sense to begin to put something in place.
I want to set in train a fundamental and independent review of anti-terrorist legislation, responding to the changing nature of terrorism throughout the world. I want it to dovetail with proposals from Europe and the United States so that by 1996, when the EPA falls and the PTA is due to be renewed, a new Bill can be put before the House—one that is not emergency legislation specific to Northern Ireland, but rather a response to the challenge of the changing nature of terrorism.
That is a very different proposal from the one that the Secretary of State announced at the end of his speech, which I understood to be an independent review of the likely position when the EPA and the PTA come to an end. I agree that the review must be carried out in a transitional way, but I cannot understand why it cannot begin now so that in a year's time we do not have to ask, "Should the EPA continue?" It is emergency legislation which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, has an adhesive quality. Why do we have to wait another year, not for change in response to what is happening in the real world, but just to start the preparation for the independent review?

Mr. Barry Porter: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the civilised way in which she is dealing with this matter. She referred to perception. I assume from what she said that the Labour party will again vote against the renewal of the order. Does she feel that in some quarters there is a perception that, in the peace process, Sinn Fein and others are seen to be making the running? Would not a vote against the order tonight be perceived


as yet another example of the running being made all on one side? Surely it is a matter of not lowering our guard, but saying, "Not yet, Mr. Adams, not yet."

Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman referred to a civilised response. I have tried to show in my arguments this afternoon that—[Interruption.] Labour's response is—[Interruption.]There appears to be a debate between hon. Members, so I might as well not be speaking.

Mr. Porter: I am listening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am listening, too.

Ms Mowlam: This is a matter for civilised response. It is a question of differing judgments between us and the Government on how to respond to the changing nature of terrorism. I believe that we should be doing more now to put the right steps in train and to use normal legislation when we can. We could do that without giving clear signs to one side or the other.
I have outlined why Labour has historically opposed the EPA on principle. Will the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) explain to me how I could now turn round and say, "We voted against emergency legislation when the violence was on the streets, but now that it is not on the streets we are going to change our position"? That would give people not only the wrong sign but a very confusing sign. As I have said, historically, we have opposed the EPA on the grounds of internment and principle, because we are not sure that it has worked, as people have argued. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out the impact that it has had on families and innocent people. The situation has changed and it is incumbent on us, as it is on others, to respond differently.
I have tried to outline how we would have responded and the changes that we would have introduced if we were in government. We are not in government. I am not able to make the same judgment as the Secretary of State. We shall oppose the motion because disapproving of the order would send out the right signals.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the eyes of Sinn Fein and the IRA, there cannot be any doubt whatever of our consistent opposition—over 25 years and more—to terrorism? We have denounced every crime and atrocity committed by the paramilitaries, whichever side they happen to be on.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and fully concur with his point. It is not only true that have we criticised every violent act perpetrated by whatever side, but—this is the final answer to the question of the hon. Member for Wirral, South—we have made an effort since the ceasefire to maintain a bipartisan approach with the Government, which has worked in the interests of the process. I put it on record that we shall continue to make that effort, because we share the Government's determination and commitment to keep the process moving forward.
That we can disagree over the renewal of the provisions does not jeopardise that effort, but shows the way in which discussion, negotiations and opposition can take place in the House of Commons, so that common sense

and rational argument may win through. We do not need to up the ante and have a problematic debate that would make things difficult.

Mr. Barry Porter: Okay.

Ms Mowlam: Thank you. We regret that the EPA will pass through the House in its entirety again this evening. We had hoped that the Government would take a more long-term view and announce plans for immediate changes. I hope that in any independent review that takes place—even though it may not be of the exact nature that we require—there is some bipartisan co-operation so that we may achieve a common purpose, produce effective counter-terrorist legislation and so that there is no reason to provoke unnecessary divisions. My principal desire is to ensure that from 1996, it will be possible to think of Northern Ireland without emergency powers—for the first time in 74 years.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). Sometimes, over the years, some of my hon. Friends have challenged the commitment of the Labour party to the fight against terrorism. I have never made such an accusation. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady's integrity in the matter, but I quarrel with her judgment: she has failed to perceive that the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from measures such as those before us, which a democratic state may voluntarily undertake, but from terrorism itself. My serious argument with her is that over the years—and to this day—she has responded insufficiently to the threat of terrorism.
The first point that struck me from reading Mr. Rowe's report was the on-going reality of the threat of Irish terrorism. It is not over. We cannot yet assign it to history. Mr. Rowe lists some points. On many other occasions my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said more. The structures and organisations of Irish terrorism are intact. The IRA in particular is still recruiting, training, targeting, researching improvised weapons and raising money overseas to maintain its structures. Unless and until a clear sea change has happened and IRA terrorism especially has declined, we cannot move away from the climate which leads Mr. Rowe to say that in his judgment the provisions are needed and should be renewed for a further year.
The first essential point, therefore, is that, because Irish terrorism is an on-going reality, the measures are still needed.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully about the words that he is using. We are not talking about Irish terrorism: we are talking about terrorism—unless he is turning a blind eye to Unionist terrorism or assuming that Unionist terrorism is also Irish terrorism. The Unionists have killed more people in the past two years than the IRA. Prior to 1974, they also killed more people than the IRA. We must be careful to be even-handed: we are talking about terrorism, full stop—that is what is unacceptable, whether it be Irish or British.

Mr. Hunter: I do not for one moment dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know from previous debates that I share those sentiments. There has never been any


justification for violence in Northern Ireland. Whether it has come from the loyalist—so-called—or the republican side, it has been equally reprehensible. The hon. Gentleman and I agree wholly on that.
I want to accelerate and be selective in my speech. I noted with particular interest Mr. Rowe's observations on part I of the emergency provisions, which he regarded as the kernel of the provisions. I note that he advocated that there should be no change to the system of scheduled offences. He rejected the argument of the hon. Member for Redcar that there should be certifying in rather than out. I greatly look forward to the time when we can turn—metaphorically—to Mr. Rowe and say that such a procedure is no longer necessary, but my reading of the situation is that we are not yet at that stage, although I share the hon. Lady's hope that we soon will be.
I especially welcome the fact that Mr. Rowe advises the House and the Government to keep the provisions under review throughout the year. Times may change, but I do not yet think that we are at the point where we can dilute or modify any aspect of the emergency provisions.
That sentiment also applies to the Diplock courts and the question of intimidation of juries. All the evidence which comes my way is that the intimidation of witnesses is an on-going reality in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that it would be irresponsible of the House to do anything other than say—sadly—that, due to that on-going threat of intimidation, we have not reached the point at which the Diplock system can be changed.
My final major point relates to prisoners. I welcomed what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say about the relaxing of compassionate leave arrangements, and I understand that that will be widely and warmly welcomed. I also appreciate the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend made in response to my intervention about Private Clegg. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should say that I have to a certain extent played a part in the campaign for the early release of Private Clegg.
However, I wish the hon. Member for Belfast, West to have no illusions: those of us who are campaigning fully understand the tragedy which afflicted the Reilly family; we are in no way diluting or seeking to diminish that, and we understand the heartfelt grief of the family. In sound bites on the media, we answer questions about Private Clegg. I ask the hon. gentleman to accept the reassurance—and if he wishes, to convey it to his constituents—that we understand what a dreadful tragedy happened that night. Nothing that we say about Private Clegg diminishes our heartfelt sympathy for the Reilly family.
The House would be acting irresponsibly if it did not accept that the provisions must remain intact for another year. As Mr. Rowe urged, however, we should keep them under review in the hope that circumstances will soon allow us to relax and move to a more orthodox and normal regime of law and order in Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I should like briefly to address the question before the House: should we, in the changed circumstances, keep on the statute book by way of renewal an Act which in many respects

departs from traditional civil liberties and requires a derogation from the European convention on human rights? In paragraph 30 of his report, Mr. Rowe states:
The EPA cuts down some civil rights which the ordinary law provides; and I am talking of freedom from questions in the street, of freedom from searches of one's home, or the right to consult a lawyer at a police station, or trial by jury, to give only a few examples.
The answer to the question is that we should do so only for so long as, and to the extent that, the powers contained in the provisions are required by the seriousness of the threat of terrorism to the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
There are civil liberties issues on both sides of the argument. The test must be whether the provisions are still required for the safety and liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of whether repeal would sweeten the peace process or whether the process of negotiation would be assisted by concessions. The question involves objective judgments about serious threats: how serious are the security threats, and how necessary are the powers to deal with them?
When one seeks to address the questions, it becomes clear that objective security assessment would currently justify some powers, but not others. Internment is clearly recognised as counter-productive and does not need to remain on the statute book. Mr. Rowe states that it should not be included in the new Act. The value of the power of extended detention is questionable, and clearly a source of great opposition and friction, although the Royal Ulster Constabulary sees it as still necessary. If it is to continue, there should be videotaping of interviews.
The Secretary of State made some welcome comments on that subject when he said that he hoped that the need for the use of powers of detention would quickly decline, but that if it did not, electronic recording should be introduced. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not envisage that happening until next year's Act, in whatever form it is introduced. It should be feasible to tape the more limited number of interviews that we expect. I recognise that the security of the tapes is vital, but it must be possible to protect that security. Surely, with co-operation on all sides, and if necessary in a statutory way, we can find a way of dealing with that important issue, which must be resolved.
So long as the intimidation of juries remains such a strong possibility, there remains a need for something along the lines of the Diplock courts. We would prefer three judges rather than one. With the declining number of cases, we believe that that would be feasible—more feasible than it appeared to Mr. Rowe when he made his report.
Some features of the legislation should be a permanent part of normal law. For instance, Northern Ireland is ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom on the licensing of security firms. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon indicate that he is prepared to do something on similar lines for the rest of the United Kingdom, following the report of the Select Committee. Such provisions should be part of normal law. It is arguable that the provisions on funds and money laundering for terrorism should also be part of normal rather than emergency law.
The patchwork pattern suggests the need for an urgent and fundamental review so that preparation can be made for the fact that new legislation is needed in 1996. The Secretary of State has spoken of a review, but indicated


that it would not be likely to be feasible in sufficient time to influence the 1996 legislation. I should like the review process to move faster than that.
Whenever it is completed, it can only take account of the security situation as it exists at that time. Change can go no faster than the security situation permits. However, that should not prevent us from taking the opportunity presented by new legislation to have a more fundamental review. The Government need to recognise that the emergency element in any new legislation could be much reduced and perhaps consolidated with a similarly reduced Prevention of Terrorism Act, as some of the provisions will not be needed and can be abandoned, and others can be included in ordinary law.
We have never been happy with the restriction on civil liberty involved in the Act, but we have recognised the overwhelming need for some of the provisions. We have also pointed to ways in which key provisions could remain effective but be subject to more civil liberty constraints. We have suggested time limits for custody on remand, which we still believe are necessary, an independent police complaints procedure, three judges for the Diplock courts and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law.
We could not accept the idea of defeating the renewal of the provisions today. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) gave an honest account of the Labour party's position, stating it clearly and frankly, but no one would be more embarrassed than the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) if the Opposition Whips succeeded in their intention and managed to defeat the order. To wipe all elements of the legislation off the statute book would not satisfy the test that we have set: that there should be a review based on an objective test of which powers are still overwhelmingly necessary and should be retained, even on a temporary basis, and how and with what safeguards such powers as are allowed to remain should appear in new legislation to operate from next year.
Clearly, our hope is that the security situation will be so much improved that most of the Act will be unnecessary. However, after all that the people of Northern Ireland have been through, the judgment must be based not on hope alone but on careful and rational assessment of the risks.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I commend to the House the excellent and probing report of the operation of the EPA in 1994, drawn up by John Rowe. I think that the Government have considered it carefully and I welcome the fact that they have not dodged facing up to the terrorism currently being carried out in Northern Ireland.
We have witnessed—as have all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic—the concern when concessions are made to IRA/Sinn Fein. It is all right for a member of the Conservative party to criticise the Labour Front-Bench team, but the Secretary of State has shaken hands with the leader of IRA/Sinn Fein. A few months ago, the Secretary of State was loudly protesting to President Clinton that the same man should not be allowed into America. A few weeks later, he flew

to America and shook hands with him. There is no difference between the situation then and now as regards the leader of IRA/Sinn Fein. He has not said that he will give up his arms; he has not said that he will give up anything—he holds on to the largest killing machine in western Europe.
It has been widely circulated in the press that one of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office met and shook hands with Mr. Gallagher, a leader of the Irish Republican Socialist party, the political wing of the Irish National Liberation Army, which has not called a ceasefire. I should like to know if that report is right or wrong.
I commend Mr. Rowe's report, because he paints a clear picture, even for this year. He states that proscribed organisations have retained their structures fully intact and the internal management processes are as complete as ever. Those organisations exercise influence over individuals and communities and run an illegal system of punishments. We have heard of a number of those punishments. In one police division, there have been 30 such punishments. There has been organised intimidation. Witnesses are driven and intimidated to forget that they have seen the things that they previously testified to having seen. Contractors have been forced off building sites and a local association of schoolchildren's parents has had to abandon some of its plans. Let me make it clear that such activities take place on both sides.
No one is more sharply at the receiving end of the so-called Unionist paramilitaries than me. One has only to read their monthly magazine. Every month, my wife's husband is described as the evil man who must be removed from Northern Ireland politics. I have had bullets fired through my bedroom windows not by the IRA but by so-called Protestant paramilitaries. A home that I bought was bombed by Protestant paramilitaries, so I speak with practical experience about both sides.
The proscribed organisations on both sides are recruiting at this very moment. They are carrying on training; they are researching and refining techniques and technology; arms and weapons are being obtained and moved about, as Mr. Rowe underscores. Targeting is continuing and, on the financial side, funds are being raised by collection, robberies, extortion, racketeering and fraud. They are now threatening certain banks. Of course, when they rob those banks, they use the pound notes. However, an attack has been made on the Northern bank by a front organisation of the IRA calling itself the Equality—the Campaign for Economic Equality. It tells us that we must not accept Northern bank notes and asks
Why does your School, your Parish, your Club, your Credit Union
receive them? It gives a whole list of so-called facts, a jaundiced list in my view, as reasons why that should be done.
There is a campaign to destroy the economy. Is that peace? If those people robbed the Northern bank, they would be happy to use all the pound notes they could get for their own ends.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the fact that no hon. Members are saying that the structures of the IRA have changed or that recruitment to the IRA has stopped and that no one has challenged the fact that the training of the IRA is continuing and that intimidation by the IRA is prevalent, perhaps my hon. Friend could suggest an answer to me and my constituents


as to why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland went to the United States of America to take the bloody hand of a cold-blooded terrorist like Gerry Adams and thereby insult the people who have faced terrorism for 25 years?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State should answer that. My views are well known. It is wrong for Ministers to shake hands with those who have not repudiated terrorism, as Gerry Adams certainly has not.
Mr. Rowe says that, in February 1995, an explosive device, which was clearly intended to kill or injure the RUC or armed forces officers who attended to it, was defused. He states that there have been 233 armed robberies, most of which were committed by or on behalf of proscribed organisations, and that the total that has been taken so far is £1.2 million. No one can say that terrorism and acts of terrorism are not going on in Northern Ireland.
If we had a true peace process, it would not need bolstering by concessions to the IRA. The IRA would not exist; it would be finished, over and done with. We are told that, if we speak about those facts, we are the enemy of peace. If there was a just peace, we would not need publicity stunts, fancy packaging, hyped-up gestures or public handshakes. Violence and all the associated criminality would end once and for all. Nothing could upset a pure and meaningful peace.
However, we are not dealing with a pure and meaningful peace process. We are dealing with a strategy that the IRA is using very successfully to achieve its eventual end. It has made it clear in its newspapers that this is just another phase of the struggle to obtain those ends. The troubles are, alas, not over. As I have said, all sorts of other attacks are being made, even on our economy.
Sinn Fein/IRA recently attacked the Prime Minister. When he visited Londonderry, he needed the support of the security forces to get him out of what could have been a very nasty situation, yet we were told that there was to have been a friendly handshake.
At the Sinn Fein conference, we were told about angry voices and marching feet and we will have them during the coming days.

Rev. William McCrea: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that there is a mighty difference between angry voices and marching feet and beating people practically to death, destroying the hopes and dreams of the people of Northern Ireland and intimidating people—members of the security forces were forced out of their homes the other day—in my constituency right to the very present moment. We hear angry voices in the House and we have heard marching feet on many occasions and will again, but there is a great difference between that and the intimidation and slaughter of innocent people.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, but the marching feet are marching towards violence and the angry voices are inciting violence, as we have seen in Belfast recently. That is going on now.
A remarkable statement was made by a well-known Roman Catholic priest, Dennis Faul of Dungannon, who recently said at a conference that the IRA must retain its weapons to defend itself from extreme Protestants. My experience in Antrim, North, and as a member for the whole of Northern Ireland in the European Parliament, is that the IRA has intimidated Roman Catholic people. It

has been vicious in terrorising Roman Catholic people, but the priest tells us that it should keep its guns. It should give up its Semtex and explosive devices, but it should keep its guns. That is the message that is going out to the IRA.
The Prime Minister in answering me the other night parroted a well-known republican and nationalist cliché: let us take the gun out of Irish politics. What needs to be said is: let us take the guns out of the hands of murderers. That is the real message that should go from the House.

Mr. Mallon: I was not at that conference and I cannot comment on what Father Faul did or did not say, but I find it incredible that a man with his record of opposition to violence through the years—especially against the IRA—would have made that statement. I note the alacrity with which the hon. Gentleman will attribute points of view to people in what would generally be called the nationalist community. I think if he started to listen to some of those voices in the House, he might get a more accurate view.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All that I am going to say is that no denial was made by the person concerned in respect of what was said, which was recorded publicly. Editorials were written by the Belfast Telegraph, which is no friend of my party, and not a very good friend of the hon. Gentleman's party either. The editorial stated what was said and criticised the man concerned. There was no denial. That is a very important matter.

Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend can take it from me that many of my Roman Catholic constituents who have come under the heel of IRA terrorism find such a statement repugnant. They certainly do not want to hear such views.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that point entirely. Social Democratic and Labour party Members, especially the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), have expressed their criticism of the IRA and its tactics. I shall be interested to hear what he says to the House. I now turn to prisoners—

Mr. Barry Porter: I am sorry to interfere in the political duet going on behind me; I speak only for myself. I am mildly puzzled. I may have reservations about some of the tactics being used by my right hon. and hon. Friends in this process. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commitment to a renewal of the order tonight is an indication that the Government have not accepted that Sinn Fein/IRA or any other paramilitary organisation should have its way? Tonight, we are maintaining this legislation for the purpose of ensuring that it is made clear to all these people that the end has not yet come. It is pointless to make futile, pin-pricking gestures at the Government when, clearly, they have not yet given up.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I can only say, "Physician, heal thyself." What the hon. Gentleman says about me should be said about his remarks to Labour Front-Bench Members. The hon. Gentleman judges me because I state the facts, yet he taunts Labour Members by saying, "Look at your attitude to the IRA", while his own Ministers shake hands with the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA. The people of Northern Ireland have noticed that.
I do not see why the whole of the people of Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by the tiniest of minorities—the prison population of 1,800 people. Why should their interests be put first in terms of the concessions that have been called for?
I have a humanitarian interest in prisons and I visit them. From a humanitarian point of view, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today. I have tried to get people out of prison in bitter home circumstances, but because they have not served a certain time, they cannot get out.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I am not against remembering the families of the prisoners because it is they who have suffered the most. It is the mother who has a continually aching heart. It is the wife who has a continually aching heart and it is the children who have a continually aching heart. I do not want anybody to say in the House, "Ian Paisley is opposed to granting special leave in serious home circumstances."
The House knows that I voted against doing away with juries. The House should read the debates because it would see that the change was agreed by means of the Roman Catholic vote in the Committee. The Roman Catholic Attorney-General pleaded with one of his Roman Catholic colleagues to ensure that he would come from the side of jury trials to the side of Diplock courts. The Protestants in the debate were indicted for not having done their duty. Hon. Members should read the reports. In addition, from day one, I was opposed to internment. I do not need any lessons about the practicalities in Northern Ireland.
The Ulster Volunteer Force has 110 paramilitary prisoners, the Ulster Defence Association has 110 and the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army have 365 prisoners. Some 20 per cent. are serving life sentences. The whole of Northern Ireland is being held to ransom because of that small minority in our prisons. Danny Morrison, who is just out of prison himself, having committed a serious offence, has the cheek to say to the people of Northern Ireland that, if a private of the British Army is released, we must let all the prisoners out. Everyone, even the hon. Member for Belfast, West—I know how he feels for his constituents—agrees on this point. I had a similar case at Clogh Mills in North Antrim. No one could point the finger at my representation, because the victim happened to be a Roman Catholic who was shot by a member of the British Army.
Private Clegg did not go out that night to murder that young girl. The IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries went out deliberately to kill, to set the bomb, to put the bullet in the rifle, to aim the shot and to kill. Private Clegg did not do that. Perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, will comment on the further evidence that is alleged to have come to light. I would also like him to tell us whether he can refer the case back to a further Court of Appeal.

Dr. Hendron: I have a point to make to the hon. Gentleman about all the prisoners in Northern Ireland, both loyalist and republican. We know that many of them have committed the most horrific crimes and that they have slaughtered people in both communities and members of the security forces. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, however, that there are people from both communities in prison who, because of the environment

in which they grew up, whether the Falls road, the Shankill road, Newry or anywhere else, followed an inevitable course? It was almost inevitable that, in a family of three or four boys, at least one and possibly two might get involved in paramilitary activity. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole question of prisoners should be looked at with some generosity? I am not talking about an amnesty, but about a spirit of generosity as part of the peace process.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am afraid to say that I take a different view from the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. One could argue in the same way about ordinary criminals. Ordinary criminals in Crumlin road have argued to me that they were brought up in poor circumstances, that they had difficulties and that, therefore, they stole money or even killed. The same law must apply to all. We are talking about criminals who took guns in their hands and shot or killed people; they know that.
When visiting prisons and speaking to prisoners on Sunday mornings, face to face, I have debated this point. I have pointed out to them that they have a price to pay for the crimes they have committed and that the best way in which to pay it is for them to do their prison term without having hanging over their head every day the idea that they might get out early. That idea brings unrest to prisons; this whole debate is bringing unrest among prisoners.
The sooner that the Government say that a tiny minority of 1,800 cannot hold the whole of the Northern Irish people to ransom, the better. That must be said loudly and clearly. That view does not make me popular with the loyalist side of the camp—it is no wonder that the loyalists attack me—and it certainly does not make me popular with my Roman Catholic constituents, especially those in the glens of Antrim who are strongly pro-republican. However, I have to say what I believe is right. I believe that that point must be said loudly and clearly so that we are on a proper basis.

Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps my hon. Friend would ask those who are campaigning strongly to consider the likes of a young man in Magherafelt who is sitting in a wheelchair with both his legs blown off. What hope, consideration and generosity will be given to his future or to two young—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Historically, interventions have been kept to one question.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand how my hon. Friend feels. He himself has been under attack, and it is only by the mercy of God that he and his family have survived that. I understand how he feels. Everyone in the district, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, knows of his genuine humanity. I understand how he feels about the matter.
I ask the Secretary of State to tell us that those who were robbed of their husbands in the Chinook disaster will get favourable treatment. In that way, justice will be seen to be done. I am not speaking with regard to newspaper reports, but to a briefing which I received from the solicitor representing one of the families concerned. I feel strongly about this matter and while I know that it is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, I hope that those on the Government Front Bench today will hear what I say and will make representations.
The House will do right to endorse the legislation. I trust that Labour Members will recognise from those in Northern Ireland that there is still a big problem with terrorism.

Mr. David Trimble: Some remarkable statements were made in the opening speeches from the Front Benches. The first came from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked him on what basis the Anglo-Irish Secretariat gave evidence and advice to J. J. Rowe's review, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not know. He is supposed to have responsibility for that group of civil servants, but he is apparently unaware, or unwilling to tell the House, what has been going on. It is remarkable he can disclaim any knowledge, yet cannot disclaim responsibility for what happens in the secretariat.
Some remarkable statements were made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), but I am not sure whether they were recorded by Hansard. She said at one point that there seemed little point in her continuing with her speech, and that was an accurate reflection on it.
The hon. Lady stated that the legislation curtails civil rights. J. J. Rowe accurately states on page 6 of his report that the legislation involves no breach of the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations. It is important to remember and to put on record the fact that the legislation involves no breach of our obligations under the European convention or the UN covenant on civil rights.
Another remarkable comment from the hon. Member for Redcar was her proposal that we should drop the present legislation on scheduling in favour of some form of certifying in. Again, J. J. Rowe's report states that certifying in is practicably unworkable unless the decision to certify in is to be taken at the moment of arrest.
The scheduling of the legislation has implications for the admission of statements and the burden of proof; the legislation does not relate simply to the mode of trial. If a decision is made to certify in, how can that decision be operated retrospectively?
J. J. Rowe's report states that, since 31 August 1994, there have been some 51 shootings, and eight explosive devices have been used. Those figures were accurate at the beginning of May, when the report was produced. There have been incidents since then—for example, the unfortunate and highly regrettable incident, which must be condemned, on the Shankhill road the other week, when some people—perhaps loyalist paramilitaries—fired on the police.
There have been other shooting incidents and murders. In addition to the murder in Newry to which hon. Members have referred, there was the murder in Belfast of a person said to be a prominent drug dealer. Everyone knows that that murder was committed by the IRA, although it has neither admitted nor claimed responsibility for it—no doubt in order not to embarrass Ministers who are now embracing the IRA in one place or another.
The IRA is continuing not only the beatings but other devices. It has murdered two people since the ceasefire, but Ministers will not want to dwell on those murders. Those facts underline the continuing need for this legislation.
Reference has been made to the way in which the IRA continues targeting. Targeting is conducted in an obvious way, but it is not just a matter of a person knowing that he is being followed. Policemen out shopping have noticed that a person is observing them. That person goes further and bumps into the policeman, saying "If it wasn't for the ceasefire, you would be dead now." Terrorists have gone up to a policeman in the street and said, "Bang, bang." That sort of terrorism and intimidation continues.
We have reason to believe that persons acting on behalf of the IRA are continuing to access records that would enable people to be targeted. Computer records from the Housing Executive and Inland Revenue records have been accessed. I hope that someone within the Northern Ireland Office is trying to think of counter-measures.
The intimidation of witnesses continues. J. J. Rowe says in his report:
The RUC have provided me with many examples, and prosecutions have been abandoned because of the fact that a witness has 'reconsidered' his evidence.
This has continued since the ceasefire, as I know from my personal experience of a case in which witnesses were intimidated.
I am referring to a murder in Lurgan, which took place around the corner from my constituency office. Some local residents were able to give evidence that helped to identify the person concerned, but they were subject to intimidation. This occurred since the ceasefire. Unfortunately, that case was not assisted by an unfortunate lapse that resulted in the names of the witnesses being disclosed to the defence lawyers. Consequently, the names came into the possession of the IRA.
Pending cases, of which we are told there are some 250, must also be handled under the legislation. There will be further cases, because one trusts that the police will not cease their investigations of previous cases where people have not been amenable. One trusts that the Northern Ireland Office has not instructed the police to lay off with regard to old cases. Therefore, there will be scores of cases that the police had not been able to clear up in the past but which, hopefully, they will be able to solve in the future.
We saw a clear example of such cases on a television programme a few weeks ago that featured Mr. Eammon Collins. In it, Mr. Collins boasted of his work in setting people up for murder when he was active on behalf of the IRA. The programme went into detail of the incident where Collins set up the then Lord Chief Justice—now Lord Lowry—for an attack.
Unfortunately, the programme—which identified not only Eammon Collins but a former academic colleague of mine, David Ewings, as being responsible for that attack—did not go on to refer to other incidents in which Mr. Ewings was involved, including the murder of my political and academic colleague Edgar Graham. Although Ewings is an Englishman, he is now domiciled in Dublin, and it is not hard to see why. One hopes that both he and Eammon Collins will be further investigated at some stage.
Thinking of the present whereabouts of those men in Dublin makes one think about extradition—an issue that seems to have gone quiet recently. The Northern Ireland Office has not tried to extradite people from the Republic of Ireland recently. I notice that there has been no such


default by Strathclyde police, who are seeking the extradition from Dublin of two alleged members of the Scottish National Liberation Army in connection with explosive offences. Interest in this matter extends beyond Northern Ireland.
Reference has been made to the Clegg case, but I do not wish to go into it in any detail. I am sure that the Secretary of State was right to say that normal procedures will be followed. The difficulty with the Clegg case stems from the existence of the mandatory life sentence. Had the court been able to reflect the case's extenuating circumstances in its sentence—circumstances to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred—I am quite sure that the sentence imposed on Private Clegg would have ensured his release by now. I suspect that Clegg's term of imprisonment has been extended by the political considerations that may be at work at present. His release has certainly not been expedited by any political considerations.
There has been a quite improper attempt to link the Clegg case with prisoners generally. Those who represent the interests of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland have called for the early release of prisoners, which could be disguised by an increase in remissions. They suggest that the remission of sentences should be increased by 50 per cent. in the first instance, with a further increase after that. The case in favour of remission is sometimes presented in terms of bringing the law of Northern Ireland into line with that of England. It is worth examining the facts, because the position in England is not that simple.
In England, when a long-term prisoner has served 50 per cent. of his or her sentence, the Home Secretary has the discretion to release that prisoner on licence if that is recommended by the parole board. It is possible for the parole board to recommend that prisoners be released on licence, with the potential for recall should the terms of the licence not be complied with. Under English law, there is no provision for blanket releases after prisoners have served 50 per cent. of their sentences.
The Home Office's attitude to serious terrorist cases may be judged from its concern to ensure that any prisoners who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland remain Home Office cases rather than become Northern Ireland Office cases, in order that such prisoners do not benefit from any relaxation of the regulations in Northern Ireland. The Home Office's concern that prisoners who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland should remain under Home Office regime represents a clear vote of no confidence in the Northern Ireland Office and its policy. However, that is a side issue at the moment.
My party normally finds arguments for uniformity in the laws of Northern Ireland and Great Britain attractive. Consequently, there is a serious argument for extending the English provisions for remission and parole to Northern Ireland. If that were to happen, it would apply to all criminal cases, not just to those who are convicted of so-called terrorist or political offences. One could not draw a distinction between those who were convicted of armed robbery on behalf of a terrorist organisation and those who were convicted of that crime on their own account; nor could one draw a distinction between those who were convicted of murder and those who were convicted of rape.
We would argue for uniformity in the laws of Northern Ireland and Great Britain in this situation if it were not for the well-founded suspicion that any discretion to release prisoners would be influenced by political considerations. We would support such a change if we could be satisfied that decisions would be taken purely on sentencing grounds.
A Northern Ireland parole board would have to be established, but its creation would not in itself satisfy us as to the probity of decision making in view of the likely composition of such a board and the improper influences that would be brought to bear on its operations. I refer to the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in that regard. It goes without saying that a crude halving of sentences, as suggested by the Irish Government, is as unwelcome as their intervention in the Clegg case.
In conclusion, I look to the future, as that is the most important consideration. On page 21 of his report, Mr. Rowe says that the present legislation can be dropped only when the terrorist organisations
have lost their structure, and influence, and their activity has diminished, so that even if offenders are detected for past terrorist acts, and brought to court, and plead not guilty, a jury can try the case fearlessly and without interference".
Unfortunately, it will be a long time before that can happen. However, a decision must be taken—and taken soon—about the future of the legislation. That decision goes beyond the issue of renewing the order tonight, which of course we shall support.
As Mr. Rowe points out, the prevention of terrorism Act falls for annual renewal in March next year and the current emergency provisions Act expires in August next year. Anti-terrorist legislation cannot be allowed to disappear altogether. Even if a complete and perfect peace were to come to Northern Ireland, if the current Acts were allowed to lapse we would have no port and entry control powers, we would lose the fraud powers and the powers to investigate financing and we would have no measures to deal with international terrorism. We must have provision to deal with those matters, and that provision should contain powers to deal with any continuing or renewed threat in Northern Ireland.
As the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act are so closely interlocked, Mr. Rowe recognises in his review published in February the very strong case for consolidating the two statutes and incorporating the amendments made by the Criminal Justice Act 1993. He states:
The time has come to put together all the provisions which concern terrorism whether it is terrorism affecting Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, or international terrorism".
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that we endorse that view entirely. Therefore, we believe that it would be sensible to plan for a single Act to replace the present legislation which, ideally, should be on the statute book by March 1996 or August 1996 at the latest. Such an Act must have a flexible structure so that parts of it could be enforced at different times and even in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the approach outlined by the Secretary of State this afternoon is too dilatory. I am not sure exactly what he proposes with regard to a review. I will study his remarks in Hansard. He seemed to envisage a slower and much more relaxed approach to the matter, but I do not see any reason for delay. I do not see any difficulty in proceeding to put together a consolidated


Act which could be used to cover the continuing situation in Northern Ireland as well as international terrorism. Crucial decisions should be taken in the course of this year so that the legislation could be on the statute book early next year.
I urged that course early in the year when debating the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. It does not seem as though anything has happened, but perhaps it has—perhaps the civil servants have been at work and we can move more quickly in that direction. We urged the Government to move on the issue months ago, and we repeat our plea tonight. If the Secretary of State proceeds in the slow manner that he has indicated, the Government will end up looking foolish, and we do not want that to happen on this issue.

Mr. David Wilshire: Like all those in the House and outside it, I am deeply disappointed that the renewal of the order is necessary. However, I think that it is necessary for three very clear and straightforward reasons.
First, the threat of renewed killings remains as great as it was eight or nine months ago. Thousands of guns are still in circulation, tonnes of explosives remain stockpiled and the INLA has yet to declare any sort of ceasefire. Unlike the Government, I am afraid that I am not persuaded that it is safe to assume that the ceasefires declared so far are permanent. If they are permanent, why keep the guns? They are not kept for reasons of self-defence, as was argued by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), because missiles and machine guns are not needed for self-defence. Why keep the Semtex? I cannot think of anyone who could give a sensible explanation of how Semtex could be used for self-defence purposes. The parties are keeping guns and explosives just in case they need them when they cannot get their own way through negotiation. Until those arms are surrendered, the orders are necessary because the threat is as great as it ever was.
The second clear and simple reason why we should renew the order is that terrorism continues. It is perfectly true that the killings have stopped bar one, or was it two, or perhaps three—who knows? Most of the killings have stopped. We are enormously grateful for that, but the violence and intimidation has not stopped and the extortion continues. The violence and intimidation are almost always of the most foul and brutal variety. People are forced to leave their homes, often on pain of great brutality or even death.
The third clear and simple reason why the order must remain on the statute book is that terrorists are still at large. The perpetrators of the evil killings to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred are still in circulation. The perpetrators of the beatings to which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred still roam the streets. The terrorists are still armed, they are still training, targeting victims and raising funds, and, above all, many of them are still dedicated to a united Ireland. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the order is a necessary response to all these factors in case any terrorist group, on whichever side of the sectarian divide, returns to shootings and bombings.
Over and above those three reasons is another much more depressing and disturbing one. There is a growing prospect of a violent Unionist backlash in the Province.
I comment on Unionist matters with a great deal of trepidation. After all, I freely admit that I was not elected to represent Unionist opinion in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland is part of my country and I cannot help but report to the House what I hear, whoever elected me and whoever I represent.
My regular visits to Northern Ireland persuade me that a large and growing number of people in the Province believe that the framework documents are a green agenda leading inevitably to a united Ireland and that the Government's neutrality is designed to persuade people in the Province to accept the inevitable. I note with some horror that a large and growing number of people in the Province believe that the Government's repeated failure to stand by their stated position proves that they are on a course for peace at any price.
Finally, I keep hearing that people in the Province believe that it is only a matter of time before terrorists are released from prisons in yet another futile attempt to buy off the IRA. I am in no doubt at all that many Unionists feel betrayed. If we show them that the gun and the bomb achieve results, they may, God forbid, take the point.
Before I leave the issue of prisoners, I should underline what I have said before in the House: I am not interested in why somebody blows up young children or guns down innocent people in a pub. They are horrendous crimes committed by evil people. Patriotism is no defence and, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), one's home background is no excuse for such evil. The assumption that they will not do it again if peace breaks out is, in my judgment, no justification for deciding that punishment is not necessary or richly deserved. Let me once again make it clear to my right hon. and learned Friend that I cannot and will not support any early releases or special paroles, or any amnesties which are not available to all convicted criminals throughout the United Kingdom.
It is a great pity that renewing the order is again necessary, but I have no doubt that it is what we have to do. I consider it a great pity that the Labour party will again divide the House. Lest they misunderstand me, I repeat that I do not for a moment doubt that the Labour party loathes terrorism, just as we loathe it, but voting against the order sends terrorists the wrong signals because they thrive on division and are experts at exploiting weakness. If we divide the House, that signal will go out tonight.
Terrorism is still rampant in Northern Ireland. Only the killing—or most of it—has stopped. If there are those in the Province who believe and claim that the order harms the peace process, we can send them a very simple message. All they have to do to make the order unnecessary is hand in their guns, surrender their Semtex and stop the beatings. If they do that, the order is unnecessary, and until they do that it has my full support.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Let me initially refer to some points made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I look forward to reading the Hansard record of his speech. I make no apology in the House or anywhere else for wanting to create and be


part of a united Ireland by peaceful democratic means, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman respects that political view. If I am misinterpreting what he said, I shall most certainly adjust my opinion.

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, believes that I was denying him the right by democratic means to fight for what he passionately believes, I apologise to him. It was not what I intended to say and I trust that it is not what I said.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
Let me start by clarifying some points concerning the case of Private Clegg. I no more wish or desire to keep that young man in gaol than I desire to keep any young person in prison in Northern Ireland for one day longer than is absolutely necessary. I take no pleasure whatsoever from the fact that young people, whoever they may be or from wherever they come, are in gaol as a result of the past 25 years and what our antecedents have left us. Unless we get it right, we shall leave to posterity the trap in which many young people find themselves and which has resulted in their presence in gaol.
Private Clegg is in the same position as many young people that I know personally and have visited. It is from that point of view that I make my remarks, but I should like the case to be dealt with as part of a wider approach to the problem of young people in prison and not as a one-off incident that can and will be interpreted—rightly or wrongly—as one law for British soldiers in Northern Ireland and another for young people from the Shankhill road, the Falls road or South Armagh. Therein lies the danger in the controversy and the debate and therein lies the problem that will continue to crop up until a decision is made.
We should recall Lord Denning's remark:
Be you ever so high, the law is above you".
We cannot have one law for one group of people and a different law for another. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to ensure that we consider all those young people in gaol for whatever reason because it is partly our fault. It was partly the fault of the House and those who preceded us here. We gave that generation of people a dud hand and when they had to play that dud hand, many of them were prey to influences that we hope our own families would never have to face.
If we were all in that position, we might not be so high and mighty when we judge other people. It is easy to carry one's rectitude like a banner and salute it as often as possible. That is much more difficult if one is sitting in a trap on a large estate in Belfast or South Armagh and knows the peer pressures, pressures on the community and the difficulties into which one's children are getting—and that there is nothing that one can do about it. Against that background, I ask the Secretary of State carefully to study the context.
From the remarks by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), it almost seems that to comment on the Clegg affair constitutes an interference with due process. That attitude has prevailed in the House for some time. If a view contrary to that held on the Tory Benches is expressed, that is seen as interference with due process. Let us put that into perspective. The Secretary of State

is considering a submission from a committee of public servants chaired by Department's permanent secretary. That will be an Executive act. Due process has taken place in three courts, including the House of Lords, which upheld the conviction. One will be an Executive act, decided by a politician on the advice of civil servants. The other was the due process of law, decided by three courts.
We must ask who is upholding the primacy of the law and the principle of equality before the law in the Clegg case. We should answer that question honestly for ourselves. However we answer, we should do so with the compassion to which Private Clegg is entitled—as is anyone who gets themselves into bother in the north of Ireland because of the political, social and economic mess that earlier generations left behind.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Minister of State have been most courageous in probably the most difficult set of circumstances that any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has ever handled. Mistakes have been made, but I put on record my appreciation of and admiration for the Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of State and other Ministers.
My one fear is that, in their reticence, they have had to be dragged on to the dance floor far too often in the last nine months, instead of taking the initiative. They should have got it all over with in the first week—getting the handshakes out of the way. If that had been done, the Secretary of State, Minister and everybody else would have been saved a lot of problems. That would have prevented Sinn Fein from mounting its public relations exercise of the past nine months, in which the unwitting players have been the Secretary of State, the Minister and the rest of us—and I include myself.
I shall give another piece of advice that will not be listened to—it concerns dealing with the realities, not theories, of my life, the lives of people who live around me and the lives of all the young people in prison. The Government should not build up decommissioning as something that they can deliver, because they cannot and would not. It is a climb-down issue. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh to their hearts' content but anybody who knows anything about Irish history—be it the history behind the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) or the one of which I speak—knows that decommissioning will not happen according to expectations.
I am prepared to face the hecklers across the Chamber in one year's time and ask them whether I was right on that climbdown issue. I say that because I do not want the good work of the Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of State and others devoted to something that they cannot fully deliver. I believe that they know that for themselves.
Whatever noises are made in the background, and whatever platitudes we hear, the reality is that the peace that has been created will last. Nothing of the scepticism that has entered the debate with certain implications will deflect anyone from maintaining that peace. Nobody in this debate should detract from that peace, which is tangible on the ground in the north of Ireland, among the people I represent and throughout the north of Ireland.
If there are individuals whose sourness of heart is such that they cannot conceive lasting peace, they should examine not just their political analyses but their consciences and ask themselves why they are so sour at


the prospect of lasting peace. The people who have suffered deeply from the absence of peace will say that it is here now because the people of the north of Ireland made it clear to the paramilitary groups and everybody else that 25 years of hell was enough. That is why the peace will last.
I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that peace is more important than his academic arguments or political heckling, or any point that he or I make in the House. That lasting peace means lasting lives. British soldiers, my neighbours and members of other communities would otherwise be dead. Hon. Members should think before they make argumentative points about a matter that goes to the heart of a situation that we have been dealing with for a long time. As Yeats wrote:
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne is far enough from the problems to be argumentative about them.
The assumption has been made that the legislation is required and that if it did not exist, there would be a terrible collapse of the entire system. John Rowe QC has been used as the authority. We read his report on the prevention of terrorism, and my opinion of that assessment has not changed. He said then that he was not part of the peace process, and he confirmed that in his latest reports. What does the measure do that could not be achieved by ordinary legislation?
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, to whom the Secretary of State referred, said in his report:
I think that the provisions of the criminal justice system are well capable of exercising effective powers to deal with terrorist crime, at the same time maintaining in a civilised society the important safeguards for the individual.
Thus speaks the Government's appointee as commissioner for the holding centres, giving his informed opinion as an eminent lawyer—that the criminal law as it stands, without emergency legislation, can cope. We should respect his view.
The foregoing statement can be looked at more objectively in the light of some statistics on convictions obtained under the emergency provisions. They are most informative. Of all the convictions obtained under the emergency provisions in 1992, 228 were for motoring offences; 184 were for unattended parking in a controlled zone; 25 were for leaving a vehicle unsecured; and 16 were for failing to render a vehicle incapable of being driven off. In the same year, there was precisely one conviction for failing to stop for members of the security forces, and there were two for failing to answer security forces' questions.
We have been told for the past three hours that this legislation is essential to our future safety. In 1993, 237 convictions had to do with motoring offences, and 179 were to do with cars being left in security zones. Thirty were for unsecured vehicles. There was one conviction for attempting to illicit information useful to terrorists, and there was one for wearing hoods in public places. There were six convictions for possession of information useful to terrorists. For 1994, there were 171 convictions of the motoring type, but there was just one for recording information useful to terrorists, and one for collecting such information. This information is recorded in Hansard, in the form of replies to questions by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
I remind the House that we are being told that the whole fabric of society would crumble without these provisions—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will find, at paragraph 26 of Mr. Rowe's report, the observation that, if it is thought that the police need the support of the Army and the other armed forces to help them carry out their policing responsibilities, part II of the Act, at any rate, needs renewing, because it is the part that gives the Army the jurisdiction to carry out its supportive role.
The hon. Gentleman will know that, in South Armagh, there is—regrettably, by reason of the enhanced terrorist threat as compared with the rest of the Province—a greater need for the Army to continue to patrol in support of the police than there is elsewhere. Is he seriously telling his constituents to second-guess the police and to tell them that they do not really need the support of the Army, so the whole Act, including part II, can go?

Mr. Mallon: No. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives me this opportunity to clarify what I am saying. My point about Mr. Rowe is that he does not see the need for any change in the whole legislation—not a single iota. Secondly, for as long as we have emergency legislation and the police in South Armagh depend on the Army, we will not be able to break the cycle. I suggest that the police service starts to operate some form of normality in South Armagh during this period of peace, however long hon. Members think it may last. Personally, I believe that it is permanent. That is how to reach the stage where part II of the Act is not needed: that will be the test. I happen to think that my feelings about South Armagh are more closely related to the facts than are Mr. Rowe's.
I do not wish to discuss the Diplock courts in detail. I do, however, think it unfortunate that they have come to be known as Diplock courts at all. When establishing them, Lord Diplock stated unequivocally that any court that did not comply with the minimum requirements of the European convention on human rights was not worthy of the name of a court of law; should not form part of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction system; and should not be staffed by ordinary judges who sit in other criminal courts. The rationale behind that remark was that, otherwise, the judiciary would risk losing the respect and trust that are of paramount importance to the functioning of the judicial system in Northern Ireland. I am quite sure that Lord Diplock has often had cause to regret the fact that his name has been associated with this system of courts.
We must realise the damage that emergency legislation has done over the years. I tell the Secretary of State that we have a chance now to start to redress that damage, not by giving way to terrorism or by allowing the creation of a lawless society, but by creating, for the first time since the state was founded, a system of justice, of policing and of law that the entire community can be part of, can support and can defend. That will in itself prevent a repetition of the events of the past 25 years.
It is easy enough for John Rowe QC to say that he is not part of the peace process. Fortunately, the Secretary of State is part of it. As such, he has a responsibility to show the community in the north of Ireland that he is confident of the peace process and will move on it—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me a couple of times, so I do not feel too diffident about inviting him to give way. I ask him to reflect on what he


has just said about the Diplock courts. He clearly implied that the so-called Diplock courts are incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. That is not so. Their legitimacy, in terms of the convention, has been upheld time and again by the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman is casting imputations against the High Court and senior county court judges who sit in those courts. I hope, therefore, that he will reflect that what he has said gives rise to a most unjust and unwarranted implication.

Mr. Mallon: I made no such implication. I was not referring to the judges who man the courts or to how they are handled. I was referring to what Lord Diplock said in the context of the European Court of Human Rights. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that some of the cases that arrived before the courts followed arrests and detentions that represented a derogation from the provisions of the European convention on human rights. That is why I recommend re-reading what Lord Diplock said when he set up the courts.
I end with a plea to the Secretary of State. Whether he likes it or not, history has made him a main player in what is going to happen at the turn of the century. He will certainly have my support for doing all that he can to ensure the peace. Together with the Minister of State, he has a major role to play in moving towards the real negotiations which alone will solve this problem. I beg him not to be dragged on to the dance floor but to go out there and take a lead. Only in that way will he be able to advance on the considerable role that he has played hitherto.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I shall be exceptionally brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to move forward along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) urged while speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. We are part of the peace process, as is the Secretary of State. I feel that he should be more progressive. I understand that there are quandaries and difficulties, but I would have liked to see him move forward more quickly.

Mr. Clive Soley: I, too, shall be brief. I know that the debate is coming to an end.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his opening words. He drew attention to the dangers that we face when emergency legislation seemingly becomes permanent—legislation that was produced as a temporary measure. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there are dangers. That has been the force of my argument over the years. I have argued that there is a danger to democracy.
An additional factor should be taken on board. We are permitted to use emergency legislation in terms of international law only when there is an emergency. If Britain has been a vast contributor to international law, we have a duty to live up to it. It is possible to argue that there is still an emergency in Northern Ireland. I think

that the Secretary of State will agree with me, however, that it is becoming more and more difficult to argue that that is the position in legal terms. That being so, we need to start phasing out emergency legislation. The sooner we say so clearly, the better.
On that ground, I think that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is wrong to say that we should vote for the motion because we want some of the legislation. If the Government were still taking the tough, hard line that was taken when the paramilitarists were functioning as military groups, the right hon. Gentleman would still have to support the Government because he wants some provisions of the emergency provisions legislation.
We must vote against legislation when we are against it—this answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—and similarly when we are against parts of it that we cannot amend which we consider to be important. We should never make an apology for that. The message that we send out by adopting that approach is that we are not divided but we believe in a democratic process. I know of no more powerful argument than that.
I agree entirely with the Secretary of State that the profoundly important issue of prisoners should not be linked with the Private Clegg case. We all know, however, that it is seen in that way, inevitably, in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) told us that he is campaigning for the release of Private Clegg and that in so doing he means no insult to the victim or the victim's family. He made the point well. Those of us who campaigned for the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four faced a similar problem, even though we were arguing that those who had committed those offences were still going free. These are complex arguments.
I make no complaint that Army officers are involved in trying to secure the release of Private Clegg. I understand their involvement because they come from the same group. However, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) has said, the community that he represents in part has strong feelings about the Clegg case. It has a right to ask why there is one rule for British service personnel and another for the people of Northern Ireland. That is the way in which that community sees the issue.
It is important for newspapers to recognise that one of the reasons for some to say that there are double standards is that some areas of the press, such as the Daily Mail, campaigned to keep the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four in prison and are now campaigning to get Private Clegg out of prison. If there is a miscarriage of justice involving a British soldier or someone accused of a terrorist offence in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, Unionist or Republican, it remains a miscarriage of justice. No other approach is acceptable.
Paratroopers form an elite group. They are selected and trained in a specific way. They are trained to be aggressive and to react quickly. That is what is needed to be a paratrooper, and that is right. That means that paratroopers are not the best group to use in what is essentially a peacekeeping role. Private Clegg might not be in his present position if he had been in one of the ordinary regiments, the members of which are not trained in the way of paratroopers. I make that point as much for paratroopers as for anyone else. They are aggressive


attacking troops. Other troops have better training for a peacekeeping role. That is why it is a mistake to use paratroopers in Northern Ireland.
When it comes to the release of prisoners, we have always had to make a judgment on parole, life sentences and conditional release schemes, for example. If someone is no longer regarded as a danger to the public, that is one of the factors to be taken into account when considering early release. A feature that has been missing in the debate, especially on the part of representatives of the Unionist parties, is acceptance of the peace process. We have all made strides, but it must be recognised that the leadership of the Unionist paramilitarists and that of the Republican paramilitarists have made a giant step. That should be said. It is in our interests that the leaderships of the two groups stay intact.
I saw the leaders of the Unionist parties linked to the terrorist campaign of the past only a few months ago. They recognised, just as do the leaders of Sinn Fein, that if their troops decide to return to violence they, the leaders, will be swept aside. It is in our interests and those of everyone else that the two groups continue the peace process. That is why I argue strongly that we should start to phase out emergency legislation.
The Secretary of State has made quite a good start but there are issues to which I should love to refer. They were taken up ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. We could go much further in terms of the Diplock courts. We must get the message over that we believe in the peace process and that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Tony Worthington: There is no dispute in the House about the need for anti-terrorist legislation. The question is whether it should be the present legislation and whether it is needed now. The issue was well covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
We welcome some parts of the Secretary of State's approach. For example, we welcome what he said about introducing an electronic recording system in holding centres. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why it cannot be introduced now. That is something that has become lost, as it were. It would be an important message. We welcome the relaxation of prison rules on compassionate leave. There was a welcome for it throughout the House.
The mystery deepens slightly when we come to consider what is to succeed the current legislation and the Government's approach. It seems that the Government intend to introduce a short-term emergency provisions Bill next year. What does "short-term" mean? The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is not now in his place, said that such an approach was too dilatory. As I understand it, the legislation that the Government propose would need to be ready for the Queen's Speech in November. The Government must have a clear idea now about what they are intending to do by means of the new measure. Not one word has crossed the Secretary of State's lips about how he will amend the EPA.
From the Opposition's point of view, it would be intolerable for a new EPA to include internment powers. Surely it would be easy for the Government to say that

any new EPA will not include such powers. Many hon. Members have talked about the limitations of the Diplock courts. Some have said that with the current legislation it is difficult to phase out those courts. It would have been handy for the Secretary of State to say that that is his intention in introducing a new EPA.
What mystified me most about the Secretary of State's approach is that he said that there would be a new short-term EPA. How short-term? He also said that, at some stage in future—he could not say when—he would start an independent review of the legislation, that it would attempt to put together the EPA and prevention of terrorism Act and, even more idealistically, that he would be hoping to do that on a United Kingdom basis. That is not a short job. If the Secretary of State does not intend to start that review this Session, how long will it take? How long will the short-term EPA be in existence?
I am rather worried, as was the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that the wrong messages would be sent, and that, no matter how long the peace process lasted and was developing, there would not be solid messages going out about changes in the legislation by the Government.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making sensible and reasonable points, but Conservative Members understand that the Labour party will vote against the measure, because some Opposition Members are more concerned about civil rights than they are about the rights of victims. The hon. Gentleman speaks of messages. The message that he and the Labour party are sending today by voting against the prevention of terrorism Act, I regret to say, is that the Labour party is soft on terrorism and soft on the causes of terrorism.

Mr. Worthington: That matter was raised earlier by the hon. Gentleman, and he did not understand a perfectly simple reply then. I have no optimism that my teaching powers are greater than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, so I shall ignore his point, because it has been dealt with.
Since we last debated the EPA, there have been two ceasefires. We should point out the difference that they have made to the quality of life in Northern Ireland, and pay tribute to all the people who have contributed to them. Labour Members—this is a partial answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—accepted that there has not been a complete end to terrorism. While there are punishment beatings, there is terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violent and intimidating tactics to achieve political ends. That is how it is defined in the Act.
When parties with links to paramilitary organisations say that they do all they can to prevent beatings, they lack credibility. They have to realise—this applies to both sets of paramilitaries—that they would become credible as democratic organisations and totally remove any case for these powers if they used their influence to stop the beatings. When organisations use intimidation and terror to control areas, to promote crime and racketeering, they undermine the rule of law. They also undermine those of us who want to stimulate the Government to maintain the momentum to normality in law enforcement. We are undermined by the actions of those who have influence on the paramilitaries.
For their part, the Government must press on with all possible safe measures to normalise policing. We welcome the withdrawal of the Army from policing


matters, and the many small steps that have been taken by the Chief Constable to move towards the ideal of a police service, not a police force. We welcome the recent substantial increases in the number applying to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary from the Catholic community. We wish to support the RUC in all its moves to build trust and confidence across the communities.
We hope that the present tense relationship between the RUC and the Police Authority can be repaired and then strengthened. The challenge to help the police to become welcome to all in both traditions who want a law-abiding and peaceful community must not be weakened by division between those at the top of the RUC and those at the top of the Police Authority. A new relationship must be worked out, and it needs their joint co-operation.
There are damaging effects from unfair law when there is armed warfare in the country. Even more damaging is unfair law when there is a ceasefire. It is crucial, with all due prudence, to keep the momentum going. It is disturbing that the Government do not seem ready to commit themselves to a full replacement for the EPA ready for the Queen's Speech. That would have been the right way ahead. There has to be a new Act of Parliament, and to move to short-term expediency seems to be the wrong way of going about that. Opposition Members have said that there need to be powers on fraud and racketeering, proscription of paramilitary organisations and the threat of international terrorism. We want that to be done in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole and with all-party support. That may be idealistic, but it has to be the target that we set ourselves.
We believe that more could be done now. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has not felt able to come here with a promise from the Chief Constable that, as a matter of policy, he would always, where possible, use the powers that are available to him under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) rather than the EPA powers. I realise that that is a matter not for the Secretary of State but for the Chief Constable, but it would have been handy to have that assurance.
We would have preferred to suspend EPA powers covered by existing criminal law, but a declaration, by the Chief Constable, of the intention of using ordinary criminal law where possible would be welcome. It is clear that the Diplock courts cannot be stopped overnight, but we have heard nothing from the Government about how those courts are to be phased out and jury trials phased in. We heard earlier that that cannot be done easily within the present EPA, but jury trials have to be phased in at some time, and the Government have to tackle that, because, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, many of the Diplock court cases have been for offences that have had nothing to do with political violence.
It is disappointing that the Government have not felt able to come to the House with a promise to give access to legal advice in holding centres. We are not asking for anything that endangers anybody. We simply want to go forward prudently with amendments to these laws. We have offered a bipartisan approach to the Government, for which they have expressed some appreciation. But will the Government take up our offer of talks so that, when the successor legislation to the EPA and PTA is proposed, it will have the support of the whole House? Will the Minister accept that offer?

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I welcome the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to his duties on the Opposition Front Bench, and at the outset say to him that of course the Government would welcome talks with him and his colleagues about the future of the legislation. If we can proceed with a wide measure of agreement, that would indeed be most welcome to the House, the country as a whole and, of course, to all others who may have an interest in the subject.
We have made a very firm commitment indeed to the review of the legislation. It will be an independent review. It will be a review that must take place having regard to the prevailing security situation, which must clarify itself in the time ahead before we can firmly decide when that review should start. I am very glad to make that response to the hon. Gentleman at the outset of my remarks.
I think that one would agree that this has been a very good debate. It has also been an unusual one, given that we are now more than nine months into the Provisional IRA ceasefire and eight into that declared by the so-called loyalists. The intervening period has, thankfully, been free from major terrorist atrocities, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, terrorist organisations on both sides remain all too capable of returning to violence. That has been a theme of the debate.
The renewal of the legislation has been supported by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They too have referred to the state of readiness of the various terrorist organisations and their ability to return to violence, and it is against that backcloth that I invite the House to support the Government.
We hope that what I have described will not happen, and our efforts are directed towards that end; but our considered judgment is that it is not yet time to dispense with any of the powers conferred by the Act. They still have a role to play. Military activity in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is down to some 25 per cent. of previous levels, and two major units have been relocated from Northern Ireland. For the first time since 1969, no soldiers regularly patrol the streets of Belfast. Policemen and policewomen are increasingly able to devote their efforts to protecting all communities from ordinary crime.
The Government have responded to the new situation in other ways. In October, all the closure orders on cross-border roads were revoked, and the physical work to reinstate the crossings is now largely complete. It has been welcomed. Patrol bases and vehicle checkpoints no longer cause extensive delays to the motoring public, disrupting everyday life. The security forces have decided to remove the vehicle checkpoint at Clady, on the Tyrone-Donegal border, and work will begin shortly. That is an operational decision by the security forces to rationalise the network of border patrol bases—those that must remain.
The civilian search unit in Belfast, which has existed since 1972 to protect the city and other centres of population—two of whose members were murdered in the late 1970s—will be stood down from the end of this


month; we owe it our deep gratitude for its services over the years. I can also announce that, from 1 August, the great majority of restrictions under the vehicle control zone order—which is made under the Act, and which restricts parking and access at many locations throughout Northern Ireland—will be lifted. I am sure that many hon. Members, in particular, will welcome that announcement. It will represent a significant return to normality, and I believe that it will be greatly welcomed by the wider public in Northern Ireland.
Some valuable points have been made in the debate; I shall deal with as many as I can. A number of hon. Members referred to the Clegg case. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked whether any further evidence had been received. None has been received, but I can tell the House that, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State received any new evidence, he would of course consider it—as is his bounden duty—and ensure that it went before the appropriate judicial authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I will consider the report of the Life Sentence Review Board objectively. We will not be influenced from any quarter or by any lobby or political consideration; we will reach our view on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. It could not be otherwise.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to flexible compensation for RUC members who have been injured, and for the families of those who have been killed. She was present last week when the hon. Member for Upper Bann introduced an Adjournment debate on the issue. In my reply to that debate, I undertook to examine any details of cases that the hon. Gentleman chose to supply; I stand by my word, and will attempt to establish what further compensation or assistance may be properly available.
The report of the inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster will be published shortly. Copies will go to the dependants—to family members who have a right to receive them. It will be a matter for the Ministry of Defence, in accordance with usual law and custom, to decide the level of compensation; that is not a matter with which I can deal directly this evening.
I particularly welcomed the reference by the hon. Member for Redcar to knowledge of, and the return of, the bodies of those who have been murdered by terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. She struck an important chord: that would bring immense relief to the families of those who still yearn to grieve in the knowledge of where their loved ones have been disposed of. I hope that the hon. Lady's words—and, indeed, the sympathy of the House—will be conveyed to those who may have influence in the matter, and may be able to convey any appropriate information to the authorities to enable that to be done.
I hope very much that we shall see the establishment of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Let it not be forgotten that successive emergency provisions Acts have played their part in enabling us to reach this stage. The necessary amendments that they have made to the judicial process, and the powers that they have conferred on the security forces, have provided the legal framework for firm and resolute action against the terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland.
I believe, however, that we now stand poised on the brink of new opportunity, and look forward to the day when the 1991 Act will no longer be necessary. Many of the comments made in today's debate—
It being three hours after the commencement of the debate, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [6 June].

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 190.

Division No. 162]
[6.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alton, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Faber, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
Gardiner, Sir George


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorst, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence






Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Rendel, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Knapman Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spink, Dr Robert


McCrea, The Reverend William
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Maddock, Diana
Stern, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thumham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trimble, David


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Whittingdale, John


Patntick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann





Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wood, Timothy


Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wolfson, Mark
Dr. Liam Fox.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Godman, Dr Norman A


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Armstrong, Hilary
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Austin-Walker, John
Grocott, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gunnell, John


Barnes, Harry
Hain, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Hall, Mike


Battle, John
Hanson, David


Bayley, Hugh
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Henderson, Doug


Bennett, Andrew F
Hendron, Dr Joe


Benton, Joe
Heppell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Berry, Roger
Hinchliffe, David


Betts, Clive
Hoon, Geoffrey


Blunkett, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Boateng, Paul
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hutton, John


Burden, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Byers, Stephen
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef' ld, H)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Martyn (Crwyd, SW)


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Keen, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clelland, David
Khabra, Piara S


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corston, Jean
Llyd, Elfyn


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Dafis,Cynog
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davidson, Ian
McGrady, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McMaster, Gordon


Denham, John
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
MacShane, Denis


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Alice


Donohoe, Brian H
Mallon, Seamus


Dowd, Jim
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michael, Alun


Enright, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Etherington, Bill
Milburn, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Miller, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Galloway, George
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul






Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Edward
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tumer, Dennis


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vaz, Keith


Purchase, Ken
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wardell Gareth (Gower)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan
Mr. John Cummings and


Skinner, Dennis
Mrs. Barbara Roche.


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Medical (Professional Performance) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Schedule

SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—

'.—(1) Section 37 (unfitness to practise through illness, etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after the word "expiry" there shall be inserted the words "(or termination under subsection (3B)(b) below)"; and
(b) for the words "; but the Committee shall not" there shall be substituted the words "; but, subject to subsection (3A) below, the Committee shall not".

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(3A) The Health Committee may give a direction extending a period of suspension indefinitely where—
(a) the period of suspension will, on the date on which the direction takes effect, have lasted for at least two years, and
(b) the direction is given not more than two months before the date on which the period of suspension would otherwise expire.
(3B) Where the Health Committee have given a direction for indefinite suspension, they—
(a) shall review the suspension when requested to do so by the person whose registration is suspended (but not until two years after the date on which the direction takes effect and not more than once in any period of two years), and
(b) having carried out such a review, may direct that the suspension be terminated.".'.


Amendment No. 1 will give the General Medical Council's health committee the power to suspend a doctor's registration indefinitely where he has already been suspended for two years. The health committee would have to make that direction within two months of the expiry of the current period of suspension. The amendment would amend the health committee procedures to bring into effect the proposals made by the GMC in a consultation document last year. The power will be similar to that already proposed in the Bill for the committee on professional performance.
The Government recognise the benefits that the amendment would have for sick doctors with a grave and persistent impairment who are currently subject to annual hearings. Those hearings can be stressful, may raise false hopes and may have a demoralising effect on the doctor.
The Opposition introduced a new clause of a similar nature in Standing Committee, for which I commend them. I agreed then to accept the change in principle and to introduce a Government amendment on Report. I am pleased, therefore, to commend amendment No. 1 to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome the amendment. As the Minister rightly said, we discussed this topic in Committee in relation to an Opposition amendment. When we pressed the Minister on


the matter, he was able to give us an assurance that the Government hoped to return to it on Report and he has done so.
There is no division between the parties on the matter of substance. Both our amendment and the Government's amendment do essentially the same thing. They amend the second of the three procedural devices open to the General Medical Council in such a way that, when the health procedures have been invoked, the council has the power, which it did not have before, to suspend a medical practitioner from the register indefinitely. That is intended not as a punishment or disciplinary measure, but to give a medical practitioner whose health may be failing the chance to recover before coming before the GMC for reaccreditation.
The existing procedure requires an annual review, which in some circumstances can be a cruel and disadvantageous thing. That will be superseded, where appropriate, by the arrangements that we are putting in place today. I therefore join the Minister in supporting his version of how we should do this rather than ours. Of course, he has the benefit of the parliamentary draftsmen and we do not.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am very much in favour of the amendment and have no disagreement with it. My anxiety about it is that it does not do anything to tackle a problem which exists in the national health service and which I hope that Ministers will deal with in some other way.
Clear evidence exists that doctors who have been suspended on pay for various misdemeanours falling short of extreme unfitness to practice are able to work while their cases are being examined or explored and, as I understand it, to earn a salary in other parts of the NHS. Clearly, that is malpractice and should not be allowed. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that the matter is being considered elsewhere; otherwise, it would be handy to deal with it in the schedule.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I should immediately say that I am a lay member of the General Medical Council's health committee. On the comments that have just been made, that issue is not in any way connected with the GMC. I share the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but that matter needs to be dealt with in the structures of the national health service rather than in the Bill.
I welcome this change in the law. I have on the floor of my office five cases containing papers for next week's meeting of the GMC's health committee. The demand of annual reviews on the hard-working and high-quality staff of the GMC is very great; it is also very expensive. The change is a practical one which recognises the merits of the case and it will be welcomed throughout the GMC.
Amendment agreed to.

7 pm

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—
'6A— (1) Section 42 (Preliminary proceedings as to professional misconduct and unfitness to practise) shall be amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (3)(c) for the words "two months" there shall be substituted the words "six months".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) The Preliminary Proceedings Committee may, subject to subsection (4) below, if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is in the interests of the registered person referred to inquiry, at any time renew, for a further period not exceeding six months, an order for interim suspension or for conditional registration.
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) An appeal shall lie to the court (within the meaning of section 38(7) of this Act) from any direction of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee given by virtue of subparagraphs (3)(b) and (c) above.
(5) In subsection (6), for the words "two months" there shall be substituted the words "six months".'.
The amendment deals with the second of two issues that we raised in Committee and to which the Government said that they wished to return on Report. We have just dealt with the first issue through amendment No. 1. I do not think that this second issue is contentious between the parties, although the Government may wish to produce a different draft as I understand that there are technical difficulties with drafting an amendment to achieve the purpose that lies behind our amendment.
The amendment deals with the issues referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Its purpose is to give the GMC preliminary proceedings committee the power to make orders for interim suspension for periods of up to six months and for renewal thereafter as necessary. That power is not currently available to the GMC.
Under the present powers conferred by the Medical Act 1983, periods of interim suspension and conditional registration can last for a maximum of only two months and they are not renewable. Therefore, it is possible for a medical practitioner to try to practise again if somebody will employ him. The GMC is aware of the problem. It published a consultation paper in February 1994, which made a powerful case for the proposal we have put before the House today. The GMC says that experience has shown that it may take longer than two months to arrange medical examinations of and reports on a doctor who is referred to the health committee.
A doctor may successfully apply for an adjournment of a forthcoming health or professional conduct hearing on a number of grounds, such as being hospitalised, family illness abroad, and so on. At present, it is possible for doctors under investigation to abuse the judicial arrangements and so escape interim suspension from the register while being investigated. That is clearly wrong. I note that the Secretary of State has said publicly that she wants to do something about the matter and our amendment provides the opportunity to do so. I do not expect there to be any difference between the Opposition and the Minister on this, and I await his comments with interest.

Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the GMC already has the power to impose interim suspension or interim conditional registration, but only for a period of two months. It is generally agreed that, in current circumstances, that is not sufficient, as it usually takes rather longer to mount proceedings. The GMC has already consulted on the matter and has received a positive reaction to extending interim suspension from two months to six months. Further orders might extend the suspension for a further period.
We have considered the issue and we believe that the correct period would be three months. As a doctor's livelihood may be affected and no case has yet been proven, we agree that the doctor should have the right of appeal to the High Court—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend mean a total of three months suspension or three months renewable?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I am referring to renewable periods. Each time the GMC wished to continue a suspension, it would have to bring the practitioner concerned in front of the relevant committee. The GMC's existing power to impose interim conditions would be similarly extended and we welcome that.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East helpfully wrote to me last week urging the Government to expedite our consideration of the matter. We have had further discussions with the GMC, with other Departments and within the Department of Health to ensure that we get the detail of any amendment correct. I regret that it has been impossible to agree the detail of an amendment and to bring one forward within the time available.
We are concerned to get matters of policy correct, such as our judgment that there should be a six-month period, renewable for three months, in contrast with the Opposition's proposal for a renewable period of six months. The shorter period is in line with natural justice. It gives further protection to the doctor while at the same time ensuring that the GMC has an incentive to get on with proceedings and to bring the matter to a successful resolution.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I assure the House—and the hon. Gentleman in particular—that we will introduce a suitable amendment in another place to bring into law what the hon. Gentleman has sought through his amendment.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I have just one comment to make on the issue and it relates to the fact that the GMC is not a court made up of professional judges or of people who are paid to do the job. The GMC consists of elected and nominated members who are not remunerated at the professional rate for the work that they do. Therefore, to a great extent their work is voluntary.
Suggesting that we need to ensure that the GMC gets on with its job might imply that it is not diligent in so doing. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is a fellow lay member of the GMC and it is a pleasure to see him in his place. I am sure that he shares my view that there is enormous pressure on members of GMC committees and that no criticism can fairly be levelled against them.
While there is a case to be made—and it has been well made on both sides of the House—to change the present arrangements to allow longer and renewable suspensions, I hope that the Minister recognises that the national health service has a part to play in ensuring that doctors who are not performing to the standard contractually required of them are, in appropriate circumstances, taken out of their jobs while proceedings are pending before GMC committees.
There is a woeful lack of information in the N. network. Often, a hospital has absolutely no idea that doctor is facing proceedings before the GMC. That is

something which frustrates the GMC's committees—notably the professional conduct committee, on which I served for five years. It is valid to make a plea to the Minister to ensure, in the broad context, that information is networked around the different parts of the NHS so that, when a doctor applies for employment, it can be quickly ascertained whether he is the subject of a complaint to the GMC.
In the Gaud case—the notorious case of the surgeon who was responsible for the spreading of hepatitis B and who was subsequently imprisoned for a year by Southwark Crown court—it was evident from reports on the case that Mr. Gaud was employed at hospital after hospital despite the fact that he had already been dismissed from employment because of his hepatitis B condition. Indeed, in that case it would appear that quite senior consultants gave references for Mr. Gaud despite possibly one or more of them knowing of the hepatitis B condition. Such a situation should never arise.

Mr. Rowe: There have also been cases of the royal colleges and others giving oral statements—on the telephone—about not being happy at the prospect of working alongside a particular practitioner, but refusing to put those statements in writing when asked to do so. There is a whole area of uncertainty in the national health service which the hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly addressing.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, I suggest that the way in which locum consultants in particular and locum associate specialists are employed simply does not bear examination. It is horrifying to think, but true to say, that they are sometimes employed as a result of a telephone call to a medical employment agency without any references being taken up at all. That is not the GMC's fault. The GMC is entirely blameless in such situations; it has no relevant powers. But the Government can take steps and I urge the Minister to consider what further steps are available in that context.

Mr. Sackville: On the first point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I would be the last to suggest that we wanted to put any undue pressure on the General Medical Council. I certainly agree that what it does is voluntary, for which we are very grateful. If there were any implication that bringing in a three-month rather than a six-month renewable power was in order to put pressure on the GMC, I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am informed that most cases can be dealt with within six months and that the proposal would deal with rather exceptional cases.
On the second point, and echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, clearly the national health service has to be very careful. It has to exchange intelligence on such matters and constantly watch out for doctors whn—perhaps—should not be employed. I remind the Hot that any doctor who seeks to work as a doctor in contravention of a suspension—interim or otherwise—commits a criminal act and could be arrested and charged for it. I give the House the assurance that we shall be bringing forward a suitable amendment in another place to cover the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: In fairness to the medical profession, it is only right to say that the amendment would, in any event, cover only a very small number of cases each year.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It did not take me by surprise because, as he correctly said, there has been a very satisfactory exchange of correspondence between us. Even if there had not been an exchange of correspondence, I could have read all about the matter yesterday in The Mail on Sunday, the campaigning newspaper that gets results. It carried a rather ferocious looking picture of the Secretary of State under the headline "Grateful". I assume that that means that she is grateful to the parliamentary Labour party for tabling the amendment and for pressing the Government on this matter.
The important point is not that the period of suspension be for six months and renewable as necessary, as the Opposition's amendment proposes. I have no quarrel with the Government's proposition for a six-month suspension, renewable for three-month periods again and again if necessary. The important point is that there is a power for interim suspension and that it is renewable. If the Government wish to come forward in another place with something containing those principles, drafted in a way that is satisfactory to them and to the parliamentary draftsmen, it would be the right way to proceed.
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Sackville: This Bill will, by general agreement, fill what is seen as a serious gap in the General Medical Council's fitness to practise procedures, which was first identified by the council itself. We have been pleased to be able to provide legislative time and support for the Bill. The Bill will add to the existing disciplinary powers of the GMC. It will enable it for the time to address allegations that a doctor's standard of professional performance is seriously deficient. It will assist the GMC's key purpose of ensuring that only doctors who are fit to practise remain on the medical register. It will further strengthen quality of service and patient safety, while providing a clear indication to members of the profession of what is expected of them.
I express my appreciation of the cross-party agreement and for the assistance of various hon. Members of all parties during the passage of the Bill. I would also like to use this opportunity to congratulate Sir Robert Kilpatrick on his six and a half years as president of the GMC. He is soon to step down. During his time as president, through his great personal virtues and commitment, I am sure that he increased the standing of the profession as a self-regulating body. He has also managed to guide the GMC towards a better balance between the protection of the public and the protection of the rights of medical practitioners. I am, therefore, very happy to commend the Bill to the House as a fitting tribute to Sir Robert's excellent presidency of the General Medical Council.

Mr. Alex Carlile: May I first echo the words of the Minister about the retiring president of the General Medical Council, Sir Robert Kilpatrick? He is a man who can best be described as having an excellent bedside manner. He has led the GMC with kindly and courteous consideration throughout his period of office. He is being succeeded by an extremely fine and worthy successor, who I am sure will help the GMC to continue to move forward. Sir Donald Irvine will be the first general practitioner to become president of the General Medical Council. Those of us who know him well—even those who have met him only briefly—quickly discovered his qualities of leadership and his articulate presentation of medical matters.
When I joined the GMC, I was surprised to discover what a hard-working and determined organisation it was. I had misgivings about such a self-regulating body dealing with the registration of doctors, the disciplining of them and all matters connected with it. After serving on the GMC for about six years, I believe that it does its job rigorously and protects the public extremely well. As the Minister said, the impetus for the Bill came not from the Government or the Opposition, but from the GMC itself. The fact that the GMC is prepared to look for improvements in the law and in its procedure speaks volumes in evidence of the council's determination.
I welcome the Bill. The GMC is grateful that the Government gave time for it. There are other issues on which the GMC has asked for legislative time, some of them are complex and relate to difficulties involving registration and training. I hope that time will be found at least as readily for those issues as for the subject before us.

Sir Anthony Grant: I must apologise for the fact that I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate. I was abroad with the Select Committee for Trade and Industry at the time.
My interest in the subject stems from 10 years ago and the tragic death of a young lady called Harriet English, the daughter of my friend and agent in my constituency, Richard English and his wife Ann. I raised the subject of her case on two occasions in the House, the second of which was 25 March 1986.
Harriet English was a young lady of 22 who was a perfectly fit and athletic girl. She felt tired after playing badminton and engaging in other exercise, and complained of a pain in her shoulder. Her general practitioner, Dr. Barretto, was consulted and diagnosed a torn ligament and administered an injection of cortisone. He made no other inquiries. Harriet was similarly treated by his partners, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Page. Sadly, four days later she was rushed to the London clinic in agonising circumstances and died of septicemia which had not previously been diagnosed.
There was a great case before the GMC on 18 March 1986 and various experts and counsel were engaged on both sides. One expert, Dr. Martin Wood, attested that Harriet's symptoms should have alerted Dr. Barretto to the fact that she was suffering from something more than a torn ligament. The GMC's finding, from which there was no appeal except on a point of law to the Privy Council, was that serious professional misconduct was not proved, so the doctors were cleared. Nevertheless, as I


told the House then, the case left unanswered questions of competence and acceptability of conduct. But no alternative charge was available under the Medical Act 1983.
I worked closely with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who had many similar cases, and was a sponsor of the private legislation that he sought to bring before the House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill before us as it seeks to rectify, as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the fact that, with regard to serious misconduct,
no such powers exist to deal with doctors whose performance may be seriously deficient but who, nevertheless, fall short of those extremes.
That is precisely what happened in the case that I have mentioned.
As I said in the House in 1986, the law as it stood was rather as if the only motoring offence was the charge of dangerous driving, and there was no offence of careless driving, the lesser offence—or as if someone could be charged only of murder, not manslaughter. I said in 1986 that I thought that that was ridiculous and I welcome the change that is being made.
The Secretary of State, to whom the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) paid tribute, said:
The Bill plugs the gap … the initiative came from the GMC."—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 673.]
The right hon. Lady might perhaps have added that the GMC was chivvied to a great extent by the hon. Member for Newham, South and, to a lesser extent, by myself, as well as by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). The GMC was galvanised into taking action by the tragic cases that hon. Members brought to the House.
Can I be absolutely assured that the Bill covers cases such as that of Harriet English? I have read the Committee reports and the full effect of clause 1, and the phrase "seriously deficient" is not entirely clear. I am not certain from the Committee report precisely what triggers the new procedure.
I believe that the Bill improves the law and I strongly support that improvement. I am sure that careful scrutiny in another place where there are more distinguished doctors than in this place—[Interruption.] With certain most notable exceptions—[Interruption.] If I have to make more exceptions, I shall have to excuse every Member of the House. There are other distinguished people in another place who will no doubt rectify, as they always do, any little errors or lacunae in the Bill.
I want to be certain that the Bill will prevent tragic cases such as that of my constituents. Richard and Ann English know that nothing can bring back their beloved daughter, but they are anxious, as I am, that others should not suffer her tragic fate.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome the Bill. I was able to speak on Second Reading and I noted with interest in the Committee proceedings that the fact that I spoke on Second Reading seemed to have been picked up by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I was flattered that the north-east Croydon question was referred to, especially as the point that I raised was based on an original point made some years ago by the hon. Member for Newham, South. He

did so in the context of a child in his constituency who died from meningitis when a doctor refused to go and see the child. The case, although proven, was not found to amount to serious professional misconduct. I have always viewed the Bill as an attempt to remedy that gap or defect in existing procedures.
I, too, read the reports of the Standing Committee. The reports were of some length and my impression was that, in response to probing by the hon. Member for Newham, South, my hon. Friend the Minister was able to confirm that the procedures could be triggered by a single incident. That is important, because it is possible to conceive of circumstances where a doctor's single act does not constitute serious professional misconduct, is not part of a pattern or a number of repeated occurrences, but most reasonable people might say that it was not good enough and something should be done about it.
I hope that my interpretation of the reports of the Standing Committee can be confirmed. It is important that we do not find ourselves a few years hence discovering that the cases that today we thought would be dealt with by the Bill are not covered.
Apart from those minor reservations, I am pleased to support the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I support the Bill's Third Reading. The Bill came before the House with all-party agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) promised during the debate on the Queen's Speech that the Bill would have a fair wind through the House from the Opposition. We made informal representations to the Government stating that we would be happy with a Second Reading Committee rather than a half-day's debate on the Floor of the House.
It was the Government who sought the full day's debate on the Floor of the House, which, towards the end, became repetitive although well-informed, largely because people were reading from the Library note, which had been well prepared. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who raised the issue and attempted to introduce their own legislation prior to the Bill before us.
The Bill increases the powers of the General Medical Council, the medical regulatory body. It enables it to take action against doctors whose professional performance has become seriously deficient. It represents a third procedure that is now open to the GMC. It already has powers to take action when a doctor's fitness to practice is called into question by virtue of first, serious professional misconduct or, secondly, ill health. The Bill proposes a third procedure.
The action that the GMC will be able to take ranges from ordering registration to be dependent on the doctor in question undergoing a course of retraining, to ordering indefinite suspension from the register. The Bill also makes provision for doctors to remove themselves voluntarily from the General Medical Council register.
While I welcome the Bill, there are three points that I should like to raise. They in no way undermine my support for the Bill, but they are matters that I believe remain outstanding. Concerns were expressed in Committee that the new powers of voluntary removal from the register might allow doctors who are undergoing


investigation for serious professional misconduct to escape sanction; in other words, that doctors could voluntarily remove themselves from the register before an inquiry caught up with them.
It is important to consider patients who have been adversely affected by such doctors. The victims of a medical practitioner are unlikely to be satisfied if they feel that the doctor has somehow escaped punishment for his misconduct. It is important that justice is done and that those who have suffered feel that justice has been done. It is very important that the procedures do not allow the rare, errant medical practitioner to get off the hook.
Secondly, the Bill proposes that hearings under the new performance procedures will be held in private, at least for the first two years. The Secretary of State made reference to that on Second Reading. It was clear from what she said that her mind was not closed to reconsidering the issue after we have seen how the procedures that we are putting in place today work in practice.
There is an anomaly in the Bill at present. It allows for public hearings at the request of the doctor but not at the request of the complainant. The objection to public hearings clearly does not concern the principle, but who can call for them. If a doctor can ask for a public hearing, it is surely right that the complainant can. That is not an anomaly that destroys the thrust of the Bill, but it is one that we might want to reconsider when we see how the procedures work in practice.
Thirdly, the GMC will be able to postpone investigation of a doctor if related investigations by other bodies are already under way. I understand that that is probably a good—even a necessary—idea if a criminal investigation is under way but surely cases in which criminal investigations are running alongside investigations by the GMC are rare.
It is not immediately obvious why investigations by, say, an employer should lead the GMC to suspend its investigations until the employer's investigations have been completed. That seems to me to be particularly true of the new procedures, which, of course, are intended to be not disciplinary but remedial procedures. It is my view that the GMC should be able to get its investigations under way when it believes it to be appropriate and also at the earliest possible time. I accept the point in respect of criminal investigations but not of other investigations. Delay will undermine the procedures and is therefore to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary.
Having made those three relatively minor qualifications, on behalf of the Opposition I give the Bill a welcome and wish it a speedy passage into law.

Mr. Sackville: I shall touch briefly on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about triggers and what sort of cases could become subject to these procedures.
Any information about a single case or several cases which would give rise to the suspicion that there was a serious deficiency of professional performance would fall under these procedures. Any departure from good medical practice, whether covered by GMC guidance or not,

sufficient to call into question the doctor's registration, that is to say his or her fitness to practise, would fall under the procedures.
The General Medical Council, under these procedures, has to look for a pattern of seriously deficient performance but a single case may be sufficient to trigger the investigation under the new procedures.
On the matter of locums and the need for the NHS to be vigilant, a report of the locums working group, inspired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, is now out for consultation. That may address many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
With that, I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) in welcoming the Bill and commending it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6), That the Bill be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Order of the House [30th March] relating to Scottish Grand Committee (sittings) shall have effect with the following modification, namely, that for paragraph (4) there shall be substituted—
'(4) in the Aberdeen Town and County Hall on Monday 23rd October at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1267), dated 10th May 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the next two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Armagh Observatory and Planetarium (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
That the draft Arts Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

CONSUMER PROTECTION: UNIT PRICING

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4069/95, relating to price indications, and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive should be adopted.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion No. 9. I see that it is not moved.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. There has been an objection to motion No. 9 on the Order Paper. As one of the proposed members of that Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion was not moved.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My point of order concerns what happens next, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is simply that we have to resolve the matter. If these objections go on for ever, the Committee will never meet and the public will want to know why. Cannot the usual channels resolve it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Government to decide when they can bring forward such a motion. Private matters between the usual channels are not for the Chair.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has it not been an instruction of the House that the Committee should report by a certain date? Bearing that in mind, does not the Chair have some responsibility to the Chamber, which has already taken its decision on the matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, it is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government as to when they may bring forward another motion.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When could the Government bring forward such a motion, given the anxiety on both sides of the House to clear up the matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the matter as it affects the Chair. I do not intend to take any more points of order on it.

Orders of the Day — City Hospital, Birmingham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Ms Clare Short: I rise surprisingly early this evening to ask the Minister, on behalf of people of all political persuasions in Birmingham, to tell us the truth, on the record in the House of Commons, about the plans for the future of City hospital, formerly and more widely known as Dudley Road hospital. The issue is causing enormous concern across the city and it comes after a period of enormous turbulence and change in hospital provision in the city. We in Birmingham have been lied to systematically before. There is now grave doubt, including in the local newspapers, about whether we can believe any of the things that we have been told in the past couple of weeks.
I became a Member of Parliament in 1983. The Birmingham children's hospital and the then accident hospital, which was of international renown for its burns treatment, were both due to be rebuilt; we were firmly promised that. There was then a new plan to build a healthy Birmingham and to build a series of new hospital provision on the Queen Elizabeth site. That caused enormous arguments in Birmingham, because people were worried that, if all the provision was centred in one place, people from other parts of the city would not be able to get to it. All those plans were then scrapped. The accident hospital was closed and moved into general hospital which, in turn, was closed. Children's hospital is now not getting a new building, but has been moved into the general hospital.
General hospital is a city-centre hospital. People were deeply worried—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was involved in the campaign to save general hospital—because it was the big hospital that served the city centre. There was terrible concern that if it closed and if there were big accidents in the city centre, there would be no way in which the people of Birmingham could be cared for. We were told repeatedly—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister would listen to this point because it is of enormous concern to the people of Birmingham. I see that he is talking and not listening.
We were told repeatedly that the people of Birmingham should not worry because Dudley Road hospital, now known as City hospital, was expanding as a district hospital, would have a large accident and emergency department and could provide for any crisis or tragedy that might take place in the city centre.
Dudley Road hospital is a much-loved, high-quality hospital that serves an enormously poor community, as well as having accident and emergency provision that serves the city centre. According to Department of Health statistics, the community is the fourth poorest in Britain. Yet the hospital is of such high quality that royal college examinations take place there. It is a teaching hospital, and the quality of many of its services is outstanding on a national scale.
The Minister should know that there is a deep ethos of public service at the hospital. Very high-quality staff come to work in the hospital and tend to stay there for a long period because they want to give a service to a needy


community. It is notable that the consultants at the hospital do not make large amounts by working in private practice; they continue to work at the hospital because their sense of public service is deeper than their desire to make extra money on the side.
I have described the background of the loss of a whole succession of hospitals in Birmingham, which caused consternation across the city. We then settled down with the new reorganisation. City hospital became a trust and the 3,000 staff who worked there were determined to ensure that the hospital succeeded. In the past, there had been trouble about the hospital's budget, partly because of the Government's funding formula for hospitals. This matter was raised at meetings with the region and meetings with the Secretary of State. The formula for distributing funds, quite reasonably, provides for extra funds where there is a large elderly population because elderly people tend to be big users of the health service. However, in some of the poorest communities, the formula does not serve well because people live less long.
The hospital has had difficulties over the funding formula on a number of occasions. We have been given assurances on a number of occasions, including at meetings with the Secretary of State for Health, that adjustments would be made and that hospitals such as City hospital would not lose out under a formula that was triggered by having large numbers of elderly people because of the great poverty in the area.
Everyone worked enormously hard because there had been crises about money before and they worked with enormous success. In the past year, the throughput in the hospital has increased considerably. People were content and working hard. All the people who worked in the hospital were united and determined that the hospital would continue to succeed after the period of instability in Birmingham.
Out of the blue came an enormous shock. On 10 May in The Birmingham Post, there was a story that the maternity unit at City hospital might face the axe and that there was to be a major reorganisation of the hospital, probably with large numbers of redundancies. There was a real crisis, because North Birmingham health authority was unable to pay for the increased numbers of emergencies treated at the hospital.
It is inconceivable that the maternity unit at Dudley Road hospital should be axed. I was born there and, more significantly, many children are born there now. It is a big, successful, high-quality maternity unit in a needy community. The west midlands has a worryingly high rate of infant mortality, which is connected to poverty. The unit is an expert, high-quality one, yet we have been told out of the blue that after a year of success and increased throughput, the maternity unit faces cuts in funding and redundancies. One can imagine the worries that this has caused in the city.
On 16 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, having followed up the story, received a letter from the chief executive of City hospital suggesting that the hospital's future might be as a sort of cottage hospital in the town. This terrified us all, and the sense of consternation across the city grew; I do not exaggerate. The Birmingham Evening Mail, the evening paper that is read throughout the city, started a campaign, for which we are all enormously grateful. We are united in our

admiration for the newspaper at present. That is not always the case among politicians in the city, especially as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) chairs its board. Some Labour Members think that that is a little odd. None the less, on this issue there is no question.
The paper started a campaign called, "We are watching you every step you take", "you" meaning the Government and the regional health executive. It is determined to find out what is going on and it has said clearly—this is the spirit of the city—that it is not prepared to see another hospital go. With the closure of the general hospital, this hospital is crucial to cover the accident and emergency needs of the city centre. There was consternation all round at the suggestion that we would lose the hospital and have a tiny replacement hospital. I tell the Minister that the present hospital is on an enormously large site. There has always been a suspicion that there might be the ulterior motive of selling a lot of the land. That is part of the fear.
On 18 May, an exclusive report in The Birmingham Post, the morning paper, said out of the blue—no one, including consultants, trade unions, Members of Parliament and people in the city had heard of this—that we were to get a £100 million new hospital on the City hospital site. We were all deeply sceptical and suspicious. We thought that this was all about a hidden agenda to close Dudley Road hospital. How one minute could people be talking about cuts and getting rid of the maternity unit and the next minute saying that £100 million, which no one had heard of, was available? We had heard the rumours about there being a tiny cottage hospital on the site of the massive district hospital. We were all deeply suspicious, and those suspicions were voiced by everyone, including our local evening paper.
The chief executive of the West Midlands health authority was extremely angry. He suggested that people should not mistrust his word, and that we should be grateful for the suggestion that we should have a new hospital. What happened then? There was a further leak of minutes of dinners—not meetings, but dinners—of the West Midlands health authority executive and of dinners of the trust that controls the City hospital suggesting that there would be an extremely small hospital with some beds. There would be an accident and emergency function, but the rest of the provision would be for walking patients who would be treated and go home that evening. The local evening paper felt vindicated. Of course we were right to be suspicious. The announcement of the unheard-of f100 million hospital seemed to be a smokescreen and an excuse for closing City hospital.
I want some firm and clear answers from the Minister. He has had plenty of notice of this debate and I am sure that he has been fully briefed about the depth and extent of suspicion and fear in Birmingham. Everyone will read his words with enormous attention, and I hope that he will give us some clear answers.
Was there or is there a plan for a new hospital on the site? If so, when was the plan drawn up, and is there a budget? Will the primary role of the planned hospital be ambulatory care and a day treatment centre? There may be some beds because of the accident and emergency function, but there is an assumption that there will be a substantial reduction in emergency medical admissions. Rather than the current practice of admitting patients for 24-hour stays, they would be assessed, have their treatment prescribed and be discharged to the care of their


GP. Is that the sort of hospital that is planned? Is the plan for a hospital of the same size as the existing City hospital, or will there be a greatly reduced hospital?
Are other hospitals in Birmingham facing similar plans? Is only City hospital to be downsized? Has City hospital been picked for a national experiment? That was the suggestion in a letter received by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, which seemed to describe a new kind of hospital with no beds and in which people are treated overnight and sent home. If so, will the Minister explain why one of the poorest communities in this country has been chosen for that experiment?
Surely it would be better to choose an area in which people have good housing, warm homes, high-quality food and support and relatives to care for them for that experiment. It is inconceivable that anyone serious about health planning would carry out such an experiment—if it is desirable at all—in such a poor community. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that proposition.
Why has City hospital been singled out for the experiment? I suggest to the Minister that the reason might be the inability to pay for services provided at City hospital. That goes back to the funding formula, which gives too little money for our part of the city. It is a poor and needy community in which people do not live as long. Therefore, the entitlement which comes from an area having a large number of elderly people is not triggered.
I think that the scheme is market-driven. The money is running out, and that is why the plans are changing weekly and monthly. A mad new idea has come up for a cottage hospital service for a very needy area. The Rowntree reports have clearly demonstrated the growing inequality in this country, and with increasing poverty goes increasing ill-health. In poorer areas, there is more sickness and ill-health, and there is an enhanced need for money for medical treatment.
Primary care is not well developed in west Birmingham. If there is to be an experiment, surely an area should be chosen that has high-quality primary care. If people are to be sent home immediately, high-quality GPs and community nurses must be available to care for them.
Is it true that fundholders in the west midlands have a £40 million surplus this year? If so, and I believe that it is, that is an outrage. The crisis has been triggered by a shortfall of £4 million, which was caused by the hospital being so successful in increasing its throughput. The mad market experiment in which the Government are engaged means that fundholders have £40 million that they do not need. A crisis is being faced by the people of Birmingham as a consequence of the mad experiment in commercial forces in which the Government are engaged.
I understand that the west midlands was the only region in the country that chose a nine-month waiting list initiative instead of a 12-month one. Where did that money come from, and where did it go? Is it not more important to pay the bills for City hospital and to keep it going? Is it not true that the money is increasingly in the wrong places, and that the most needy are experiencing worse health care?
I suggest to the Minister that City hospital is an inappropriate setting for the experiment of a cottage hospital in the middle of a city. I understand from our local newspaper that the £4 million missing for this year has been settled, but I want an undertaking that it will be

settled for longer than this year. We met the Secretary of State for Health, who promised us that she would attend to the funding formula problem. But it is not good enough to provide £4 million for this year and then say that there will be a crisis next year.
That hospital needs stability, and all concerned want to know where things stand. A group of GPs and hospital doctors are currently going through every service that the hospital provides, looking at all modern developments and making sure that we plan for the future. We must make sure that we have proper provision for the people of west Birmingham. We are not against change, but we want decent services for the people whom we represent.
We do not need this new hospital. We are being conned. I was born in Dudley Road hospital, and my family has been cared for there throughout our lives. I have been in and out of the hospital throughout my life. It is a big old Victorian hospital in large grounds. Of course it needs some attention here and some further work there, but all sorts of building developments are taking place on the site. It is not falling apart, but out of the blue we were told that the hospital was to be pulled down and some tiny cottage hospital built.
I am told that there are strange capital charges in the funding formula. Is there some distortion in the formula that means that a large old hospital—no matter how adequate, warm and well maintained—is somehow more costly, and therefore must be got rid of?
I very much hope that the Minister will give some adequate answers tonight. Everyone in Birmingham will be watching the Minister, with the help of our newspapers. If he, his Administration and the regional executive carry on their threats, we will cause so much fuss, agitation and protest in the city that he and they will regret that they ever dared to try to close or replace City hospital.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I must be clear that he has the sanction of both the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and the Minister.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): indicated assent.

Ms Short: indicated assent.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for allowing me to participate in this Adjournment debate, and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) may also be allowed to take part. We have been lucky—it is the first bit of luck that City hospital has had—to have extended time for this debate, and we should make good use of it.
I do not want to be repetitious. The Minister will be the most famous man in Birmingham tomorrow, because all his words will be read. The people in the city are aware of my views and of those of my hon. Friends, but they will want to know the Minister's views.
City hospital served the old West Birmingham health authority which—before the amalgamation last year—consisted of the four wards in my constituency, all the


constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood and one ward in the constituency of Small Heath. West Birmingham health authority's calculations and reports from the former director of public health—all of which have been published—show that it is the most unhealthy part of England in which to live. A whole series of indicators—early death rates among adults, suicides, accidents in the home, perinatal mortality rates and low birth weight babies—confirm that.
We need a good hospital and better primary health care. We are debating a part of Birmingham that is not wealthy and is unhealthy: that point must be taken on board. Since the trusts were formed and the current spate of reorganisation, there has not been as much contact between those who run the health authorities and Members of Parliament as there was previously. We have had crisis meetings in the past, and we have certainly had such meetings in the past few weeks. There has been no full and frank exchange of views and thoughts.
That may be because those currently involved in health planning in Birmingham know what happened in the days of Sir James Acker's reign at the West Midlands regional health authority, when there was one plan after another for Birmingham and we went to one Secretary of State after another. The consensus among my hon. Friends was that, by and large, we had been conned regarding the proposed hospital closures and other changes in health care. The good times that we were promised have not arrived. Therefore, we are bound to be a little sceptical and, for that reason, the current health planners have decided not to talk to Members of Parliament.
However, rumours were rife around the city. They could not be pinned down. The regional chief executive said that he did not know the origins of the idea that there were one too many hospitals in Birmingham. At meetings that I attended in the last decade to discuss health planning issues in Birmingham—right back to when we devised the "Plan for a Healthy Birmingham"—we were told that, according to population changes and new modern medical techniques, Birmingham had one hospital too many.
We were never told which hospital it was, and general hospital was framed for closure. It was not a fully fledged district general hospital. It was located in the city centre, but it was not a large hospital—I do not think that it ever had more than 400 beds and three operating theatres. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, I was born at the former maternity hospital in Loveday street, which is attached to general hospital.
When the city centre hospital ceased functioning as a mini district general hospital—it serves various other purposes today—we were told that modern health techniques in hospitals required the construction of large district general hospitals in order to deal with all complications that might arise as a consequence of patient treatment. We said at the time that the hospital was useful for dealing with accidents and emergencies because of its proximity to the city centre and that it was very easy to reach.
We were then told that Dudley Road hospital was a city centre hospital. The authorities were very clever to change its name to City hospital, because that gives people outside Birmingham the impression that it is located in the city centre. As a Brummie, I would not describe Dudley Road hospital as a city centre hospital. Many of

my constituents have difficulty reaching it, and it is their district general hospital. It is sometimes easier for them to travel to Sandwell hospital or to Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield.
Over the years, we got the impression that the planners wanted to close one hospital in Birmingham, but we could not tell which one it would be, as building work was under way almost constantly at Dudley Road hospital, Good Hope hospital, East Birmingham hospital—which was renamed Heartlands—as well as at the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. It was extremely difficult to forecast what would happen.
After a period of quiet and lack of discussion, it appears that Dudley Road hospital is to close—notwithstanding the fact that the maternity hospital is located there and that the new eye hospital is being built on that site. I have no complaints about the fact that there is to be a bedless hospital. I think that some of the headlines about that have been unfair, bearing in mind that it will be situated next to an 850-bed district general hospital. However, if an 850-bed district general hospital is not located next to the new eye hospital, we will have a problem. The Minister must be made aware of that.
The current eye hospital in the city centre has been closed many times for health reasons and its current lease is about to expire. Hence, a new eye hospital is to be built on the Dudley Road site. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the Dudley Road hospital.

Mr. Sackville: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rooker: I hope that he will visit it soon. When he does, he will see that a large part of the site has been cleared recently. Many of the oldest parts of the Dudley Road site—which are more than 100 years old—have been demolished. Part of the site was the old workhouse. However, the entrance to that former workhouse has been retained as it is a listed building and therefore cannot be demolished. A great monolith representing part of Birmingham's history remains while the rest of the area has been demolished.
A district general hospital containing 850 beds is not a large district general hospital; it is a modest hospital. We are now very short of emergency beds in Birmingham. No one in his right mind wants disasters to occur, but it is the responsibility of all those involved in political life to plan for the future. If people turn on a power switch and the lights do not come on, they will not thank us when we say, "Sorry, we did not build enough power stations." Similarly, if there is a rail or aircraft disaster, we cannot say, "Sorry, we got rid of the spare hospital beds on the orders of the accountants."
Last week I asked what would happen if a 747 crashed in Birmingham. Many senior people replied that not many people would be injured. That is not the right way to approach the issue. It is no use saying that the health service will stop and that we will get on the telephone and locate empty beds. If we reduce the number of beds available at Dudley Road—whether or not the hospital is rebuilt—we are courting full-scale disaster in Birmingham.
My noble Friend Lord Howell of Aston Manor, a former Member of this place, recently waited 12 hours for a bed on the day before his operation was to take place. He asked for nothing more than his rights as a patient of the national health service. He had gone to that hospital


all his life, yet he had to wait 12 hours for a bed in order to undergo an operation the next day. He experienced the problems at that hospital at first hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood mentioned the current spate of rumours surrounding the fate of the hospital. There was a press report about the possible closure of the Dudley Road maternity hospital, and before the most serious rumours took off, I was contacted by doctors from the Laurie Pike health centre—formerly the Birchfield medical centre—in my constituency. It is a world-class local primary health care general practitioner practice. Doctors who want to learn how to run a good practice with their own researchers and who wish to get out into the community practise in that centre. I once sent the former Home Secretary, the present Foreign Secretary, to that centre to learn what was happening in inner-city health care. I told him to talk to the doctors rather than to the self-appointed community leaders.
The doctors in that centre wrote to me saying:
We are GPs in the Laurie Pike Health Centre caring for patients in Perry Barr, Aston, Handsworth and surrounding areas for which the City Hospital, Dudley Road is the main provider of secondary and maternity care.
We are deeply concerned about the implications of the proposed closure of the maternity and possibly other departments at the City Hospital. This would seriously affect the care of our patients and indeed all those in the catchment area.
It would not only be difficult, particularly for pregnant patients to travel to the Maternity Hospital or Good Hope but we do not consider that they would receive comparable care".
The press reports about that proposed closure were worrying enough, but on VE day, as I sat in the cathedral an hour before the start of the commemorative service, two people approached me within half an hour of each other to ask whether I had heard rumours about the possible bulldozing of Dudley Road hospital. I had not heard those rumours before that day.
I then wrote a letter of no more than 50 words to the chief executive asking him to comment on the press reports about the closure of the maternity hospital and about the rumour that I had heard. The rest is history. The chief executive, Mr. Tarver, replied to me by letter. I understand that he has been ill recently and I wish him a speedy return to health. He has served West Birmingham health authority and the City hospital trust with distinction. He wrote me a frank letter in which he answered my questions and commented upon the rumours. I was horrified: it was the first I had heard of town hospitals. The new concept involved bulldozing district general hospitals and replacing them with small town hospitals located in the suburbs.
I am in favour of small town hospitals as a complement to district general hospitals, but not as an alternative to them. My constituency suffers from the lack of good-quality health centres where minor operations may be performed and where localised aftercare could be provided in the community prior to patients returning home. Small town hospitals should not be an alternative to the City hospital and the work that it does.
I was concerned about that proposal, and I made Mr. Tarver's letter public. I asked the medical journalist at the Birmingham Evening Mail, Mr. Derek Weekes, to investigate the matter. I am 100 miles away for four days every week and he was able to speak to many people. My hon. Friend has quite rightly paid tribute to the Birmingham Evening Mail for its excellence in reporting

general health-care issues and the NHS in Birmingham. Its reporting of those issues was of a high quality before the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) took control of the company, and the newspaper has maintained that standard ever since. It is to the credit of the editor and journalists concerned.
The staff at the hospital asked the management whether they could have a copy of the letter that Mr. Tarver had sent me. They were refused, because of all the complicated questions that I had asked. I had written a 50-word letter enclosing a newspaper cutting about the possible closure of the maternity unit and asking for comments on what I had heard in the cathedral on VE Day. I did not ask a series of detailed questions. I have done so since, but it is obvious that there was less than openness with the staff. That is the root cause of the problem.
If the Minister wants to get a grip on the matter and stop what has become a public relations disaster for health service management in the west midlands, and consequently the Government, the one sure way to do it is by total openness. It is only a few weeks since the new code of open practice in the health service was launched by the Secretary of State.
I take no joy in the matter. What has happened in Birmingham is tragic. It is causing consternation among our constituents as GPs, patients and families of patients. It is totally unnecessary and it can be cured only by openness in thinking and sharing thoughts about health service planning with consultants, GPs and hospital staff. It is not happening because of money, accountants and budgets. One hospital has been set against another because of the market. That is the difficulty, and the Minister is the only person who can do anything about it.
I look forward to hearing his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood about the proposed £100 million hospital. Mr. Edwards, the regional director of the NHS, wrote to me on 23 May. His letter consisted of three sentences, each a paragraph. The middle one was:
Do you want a new hospital or not?".
Frankly, no one had ever offered a new hospital. My answer is that I am not sure, for the following reason. There is no question about the site being large. It is bordered by main roads and the canal. It is not far from the prison. Where would the new hospital go? Would the present one be knocked down to clear the site for a new one? Would the new one be built somewhere else while the present hospital is operating 850 beds?
Someone has to answer some practical questions about putting another hospital on the site. Even with modern building techniques, there is no room to put another hospital of the same size on the site while maintaining the existing provision. The idea that the hospital at Dudley Road could be knocked down and everyone squeezed into all the other hospitals in Birmingham, if accepted, would be the final nail in the coffin. It would get rid of the spare hospital in Birmingham because, on the evidence of the past 10 years, I do not believe that a new one would ever be built once the site was cleared. That is a real problem.
Openness has to be the way forward. That openness has to include the meetings of the health authority and the trust. The Birmingham Post did some work on that issue. There were five meetings concerning Birmingham health service trusts and authorities, all behind closed doors. The journalists went to an open session and found that


members of the authorities were not asking questions. It has been left to Members of Parliament and The Birmingham Post to ask some key questions of those in charge of the health service.
It is not always easy to find out who is in charge of the health service. The way in which it has been reorganised means that accountability has been diffused, spread and blurred. That in itself causes difficulty; therefore, sometimes we have to reach for our press pack or press six-gun. We cannot get the answers because we cannot find out who is accountable. It is all part of the consequences of constant reorganisation and lack of accountability.
There is also considerable lack of accountability in the House, as the Minister will make it clear that it has nothing to do with him—it is the trust for this, the trust for that, with this authority or that authority making the decisions. That is not good enough. We want some accountability in the House of Commons for a public service that is supported and loved by the vast majority of people in Britain.
I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has said. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions and make the position absolutely clear so that it cannot be misunderstood by anyone, even by the most malicious of the Government's political opponents.
I am not seeking to make party political capital out of the issue. I want the truth for my constituents and the citizens of Birmingham, but I cannot secure that if the Minister and the health service are not open with me. If I feel that they are not being open and that I am being misled, I shall use arguments that border on a political attack as they are my only weapons as a Member of Parliament.
I should rather satisfy my constituents and the doctors that we shall maintain quality health care at City hospital, with progress and advancement. Nobody wants to ossify what we have; we want to advance on a range of issues.
It has been an unfortunate three or four weeks for the health service in west Birmingham, the knock-on effects of which have affected the rest of the city. That has done the health service no good, the Government much damage and, above all, has given my constituents some unnecessary sleepless nights.
I shall not recite individual cases, but I have been deluged with letters from constituents complaining to me about occurrences in the past few months that they thought they could put up with, but they now realise how much pressure the staff have been under at Dudley Road. The hospital has treated 13 per cent. more patients in the past year. That is part of the reason for the present financial difficulty. I consider 13 per cent. more patients to be a success. The hospital should not be penalised because of the way in which the Government organise health service finances.
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say and the Minister's detailed response to the debate.

Mr. Richard Burden: With the permission of the House, I shall make a short contribution to the debate. A few weeks, ago I left the House early. I went back to my constituency on a Thursday

to find an article in the newspaper that day talking about a £100 million investment in City hospital. I was not aware of the correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had with City hospital. I was suddenly confronted with the news of a£100 million investment and I was asked for my reaction. My initial reaction was that I wanted to look at the fine print and I was rather sceptical.
In Birmingham we have heard quite a lot about mega-investment in hospitals over the past few years. Not many years ago, we had the so-called "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan. At that stage we were promised an investment of £500 million in new and refurbished hospitals in the city. We were told—and we knew—that the hospital stock in Birmingham had not had sufficient investment for many years. Part of that investment included a new children's hospital.
The "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan was unpopular because the regional health authority in one of its guises had not talked to many people about it and when it did, it did not listen to them. When that plan was dropped, nobody shed many tears, but a couple of years later—about two years ago—a new document called "Looking Forward" told us that we would have investment of more than £100 million in hospital services in Birmingham.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is not a general debate about hospital services in Birmingham. It is a very specific debate about Dudley Road hospital.

Mr. Burden: The relevance to Dudley Road will become clear. It relates directly to a letter about Dudley Road and the dinner to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred concerning Dudley Road, which puts the issue in the context of hospital developments in Birmingham.
"Looking Forward" talked about around £100 million investment. I took that up with the Minister responsible for health in another place who explained that it was not really a cut in hospital investment. I could not see that. The new programme promised no new children's hospital, just a rejigged children's hospital on another site, but we were promised a new emphasis on primary care.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no use the hon. Gentleman acknowledging a ruling from the Chair and then starting to talk about primary care, which has little to do with Dudley Road.

Mr. Burden: I do not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend made the point that, if Dudley Road is to close as a district general hospital and there is not sufficient primary care in Birmingham, the idea being mooted of a network of cottage hospitals could not be effective.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman. This is the first time in three minutes that he has even mentioned Dudley Road. I will be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman will remark specifically about Dudley Road, and make such other allusions as may be relevant. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not referred to Dudley Road.

Mr. Burden: Because of public concern about Dudley Road, the chair of NHS Executive West Midlands, Brian Edwards, wrote to all Birmingham Members of Parliament on 6 June. He explained:
I thought it might be helpful if I put events into the sequence in which they occurred.
Item 3 states:
On 26 April Brian Edwards met the Chief Executives of all hospitals in Birmingham to discuss how hospitals might work together to improve services and reduce unnecessary costs. Roger Tarver, of City Hospital, copied his personal notes of the meeting to his fellow Directors.
I have a copy of those notes. The third paragraph states:
Regional officers had decided that a new, but much smaller, hospital should be built at Dudley Road.
However, Mr. Baker's letter continued:
We have absolutely no plans to close City Hospital. It not only services a very needy local population but also plays an essential part in the fabric of the Health Service in Birmingham.
Personal notes or not, it is clear that City hospital's chief executive believed from a meeting attended by representatives of all the hospitals in the area and of the regional health authority, to plan future hospital services in Birmingham, that City hospital as we know it was to be replaced by a new, smaller hospital—and that some of the services that it and other hospitals provide would be rejigged elsewhere.
Roger Tarver's notes state:
The Birmingham Women's Health Care Trust—not wishing to become a baby factory—could provide services for complicated births and neonatals currently dealt with at City Hospital.
So we need to ask what plans there are for maternity services at City hospital. Another note observes:
An option appraisal is to be developed for the relocation of orthopaedic services from the Woodlands site. It will compare a new build at the City Hospital with use of the new Solihull Hospital, given that there appear to be limited uses for the latter, the preferred solution is predictable.
That concerns me because, on the face of it, that note states that Dudley Road will have a new range of services, including extra orthopaedic services—but that they might go to Solihull hospital instead. The point is, though, that those services would come from Woodlands hospital on the borders of my constituency, which has been the subject of a long and well supported campaign over the past two years to remain open. We thought that it had finally been reprieved just a few months ago, and it has been given trust status. It could now lose its lifeblood of orthopaedic services to City hospital. We must have answers.
When the new regime arrived in West Midlands regional health authority, it was at pains to emphasise that it wanted to be open and have a dialogue with Members of Parliament and the people of Birmingham. We were told that the lessons of the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" plan had been learnt and that henceforth, everything would be above aboard, and everybody would be involved and told what was happening. The events of the past few weeks leave me most worried. The Birmingham Evening Mail is right to print the words "We are watching you" whenever it mentions the issue. We do not currently have enough confidence in the system to know what is happening.
At an apparently private dinner on 26 April, the City hospital chief executive took personal notes that imply comprehensive reorganisation of Birmingham health

services, involving the possible transfer of orthopaedics from my constituency to Solihull hospital, which is under threat, or to Dudley Road. There is mention of maternity services now at Dudley Road being transferred to the women's hospital, and of changes at the children's hospital.
Those matters are of major public concern. Every time I ask the regional health authority what is going on, we are told that planning is a matter for individual trusts. Now we are told that all the trusts and hospitals have got together with the regional health authority over dinner to devise a new blueprint for Birmingham hospital services.
We must know what is happening. I am pleased that we are meeting the regional health authority chief executive in a day or so, and I hope that he will give answers. I hope that Ministers can give answers as well. All the problems that London—which has received a good deal of publicity over health care—is experiencing are equally important in Birmingham. The future of local hospitals are important to local people. They made their views crystal clear in the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" debate. They want to be listened to and to have say. They do not want to be bounced into things, and they want people to be straight with them.
What is the future of City hospital? How big will it be? How many beds will it have? If there are plans to build a new hospital, we have a right to know how it will be financed. As my hon. Friend said, the capital charges debate has bedevilled a number of Birmingham hospital projects, including the children's hospital rebuild.
Added to that is the private finance initiative. My experience of it in Birmingham relates to a new primary health care centre, when it led to further delays in the building programme. If City hospital is to be rebuilt, will private finance be sought? If so, from where? Will it be just an injection of private capital into something that will remain a national health service development in all its aspects—I mean, one owned and run by the NHS, and whose ancillaries services will be run by the NHS? If we do not receive a clear answer, I will be profoundly worried.
I hope that the Minister will answer our questions today and will also tell the people who run the NHS Executive West Midlands that, before they embark on mega-reorganisations in future, they must talk to Members of Parliament and to the people of Birmingham.

Ms Estelle Morris: With the leave of the House, I shall make a short contribution to this Adjournment debate. My constituency is not in west Birmingham but lies to the east, and Heartlands is my district hospital. I want to emphasise the importance of the matter to the whole of the city.
At risk is the confidence that Birmingham people were just about beginning to have in health provision management in the west midlands. The Minister will not need reminding that West Midlands regional health authority and Birmingham hospitals have been through a difficult time in recent years. There is a history of mismanagement and poor service. One of the worst effects of that was that it damaged public morale and the public's confidence in their hospitals.
There has been a period of quiet over the past year or 18 months since the new administrators took office, and some good things have happened. The fact that waiting


times in all our hospitals, including Dudley Road, have fallen is much to be welcomed. There has been a healing process; the period of quiet has been a time when people's experience of hospitals—although by no means satisfactory, and no excuse for resting on laurels—has not been as bad as it was two or three years ago.
Now there is a perception among people throughout Birmingham that the period of quiet has been used as an opportunity to plan the closure of another hospital. That is tragic. Not only would it be a tragedy if Dudley Road were closed, but the recovery of morale among the people of the city would be hindered. The Minister must begin quickly to explain the intentions of his administrators as regards the city of Birmingham.
This problem is a festering sore. If it is left to fester, the people who live in the west of the city—the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—will not know the future of their health care in hospital, and they will be pitched into a period of uncertainty that we could well do without. It is the very last thing we want.
Furthermore, we do not want the public's lack of confidence in the hospital administrators to be allowed to grow. We do not want to have to come to the Minister and tell him that, if he is going to save Birmingham's hospitals, he will have to change the chief executive and the hierarchy again.
Let us nip the problem in the bud. Let us have some openness and some clear answers, so that we and the people of Birmingham can take part in the debate, if one is to take place. People in the west of Birmingham must not be left uncertain as to whether they will have a hospital. They need to know that the people running our hospital service are prepared to consult them about what has been going on behind their backs, and that they will not act without taking their views into account.
We ask, first, for an assurance that Dudley Road will continue; secondly, for an assurance that the administration of our hospitals is in good hands and will be opened up. Thirdly, we ask, even today, for an end to the rumours, scaremongering and uncertainty that are plaguing everyone who works in our hospital service—and all the families who look to it for their health care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has sought this debate. Indeed, I am not surprised that she has. I have seen some of the headlines in the various Birmingham newspapers; clearly things have been said, which have caused alarm. I should like to do what I can to calm those fears, although in doing so I also recommend that hon. Members present for the debate meet the regional health authority—I believe that they intend to do so. Mr. Brian Edwards will be in a position to reinforce what I am about to say.
There are no plans to close the City hospital, otherwise known as the Dudley Road hospital. There have been suggestions and discussions—this is all now in the open—between many of the chief executives and other local

employees of the health service about the possible advantages of redeveloping City hospital, for a number of reasons.
Clearly, the hospital is a large and rambling site. It is also of a certain age and, as Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of the RHA, put it—much better than I could:
Although the staff at City Hospital provide an excellent service, the buildings are now as much a hindrance as a help, particularly the cramped Accident and Emergency and Out-patient building at the front of the hospital, and the long corridor of wards in the main block.
So there is apparently general agreement among those working for the health authorities and trusts concerned that patients and staff could probably benefit from a new development of the hospital.
That is not to say that the hospital will close, or that the services there will be withdrawn. But all over the country, older hospitals, particularly those that are rambling and difficult for staff and patients, are being redeveloped. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on building new hospitals or building new wings on current hospitals, and that is good. Thus, I was a little concerned to hear the hon. Lady apparently rejecting out of hand the idea of a redevelopment. She should not do that.

Ms Short: No one would reject a redevelopment of the local hospital, although it is not such a shambles as to amount to a crisis. It does not need to be pulled down; it works quite well. People like the space in older hospitals. What we reject is a cottage hospital. If we are being conned with one, we do not want any part of it. We would rather keep what we have.

Mr. Sackville: I can reassure the hon. Lady that it will not be a cottage hospital or a tiny hospital. I acknowledge that the notes circulated by Mr. Tarver, and his letter, were open to alarmist interpretations. The view that he expressed was not, as far as I know, shared by his board or the other authorities involved. It should be seen merely as a contribution to the preliminary part of an important debate that will take place on the buildings at the City hospital.
If there is to be a new development and it is thought that there are good reasons for one, it will be the subject of a great deal of open consultation. As a Health Minister, I would expect no less. The resulting hospital is likely to be physically smaller than hospitals that would have been built some time ago. There are a number of reasons for that: hospital design, and the fact that there is much more day surgery these days. Stays in hospital are shorter; much more work is done in the form of out-patient work. Some conditions that used to require stays of a week or more are treated in one day now, or even require no in-patient admission at all. There is no argument between us on that point—hence the emergence of smaller hospitals.
As that process continues around the country, we find that more patients are being treated. To quote a well-worn statistic: we now treat more than 120 patients for every 100 treated four or five years ago—after making allowance for the small change in the method of counting, from deaths and discharges to finished consultant episodes.

Mr. Rooker: I am elected to represent the citizens of Birmingham, and we are also here in Parliament to take a national overview. My experience tells me that we cannot


use what is happening in the rest of the country to organise Birmingham. The fact is that we have been short-changed on our hospital care for a decade or more. Primary health care infrastructure has not been built up to cope with the changes in the hospitals. The pressures on the community care services exerted by speeding patients through hospitals, and bringing them back to hospital time and again, have brought those services to breaking point. That is why I am worried by talk of a smaller hospital without guarantees that primary health care and the necessary mini-health centres around Birmingham will be in place before we start.

Mr. Sackville: A reduction in the number of beds—we have heard all the arguments about that, especially in London recently—must be accompanied by a discussion with everyone concerned and by every attempt to reassure the public, along with the provision of suitable primary care and other community care facilities. We cannot rely on a change to day surgery alone. If we are to reduce the number of acute beds, we must ensure that there are facilities to treat people elsewhere. It is often an improvement from a health point of view to treat people in their homes or near their homes instead of admitting them to hospital. In terms of outcome, that is often an improvement. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that we must not proceed with bed reductions without being sure that the facilities that are needed are put in place.
I was asked specific questions by the hon. Member for Ladywood. She asked whether there were plans for a new hospital. No, there are not. There have been some preliminary discussions, the general outcome of which is that it is likely to be advantageous to redevelop City hospital. The hon. Lady asked me when that would happen. That I cannot answer, because there are no firm plans at present. She asked me what the budget would be. I do not know, because in advance of detailed proposals for major hospital schemes, it is impossible to make any estimate. I can only tell the hon. Lady that there are many schemes throughout the country where £50 million or more in capital is being spent, in either building a new hospital or redeveloping parts of major hospitals.

Mr. Burden: The chief executive of the NHS Executive West Midlands has specifically mentioned £100 million in talking about the City hospital site. May we be clear that there is no plan for an investment of £100 million? May we take it that it could be more or less, and that mention of £100 million should not be taken as a guarantee?

Mr. Sackville: That is correct. It would be impossible to calculate at this stage the capital cost of a major new future development. Such a figure would be an informed guess of the cost of development and would make it a major hospital development. We are tending to see smaller hospitals rather than larger ones.
There is no question of an experiment. The words used by Mr. Tarver described his own view. The most likely outcome of any discussion on redevelopment is a more traditional hospital model, even if that is accompanied by a certain amount of provision for community facilities.
The hon. Member for Ladywood also asked me about extra funding for the deficit that is still being experienced in the finances of City hospital. As she knows, that money has been made available. It will be made available,

however, on the condition that plans are laid to bring the finances of the trust into balance, as with every other trust throughout the country. She should not suppose from what I have just said that there will be massive redundancies or cuts in services.

Ms Short: I hope that the Minister listened to what I said about the problem arising from the formula for funding west Birmingham. We are faced with a problem of success. The hospital has treated more patients. We cannot make up the deficit without a reorganisation of the funding. Everyone who works in the hospital has worked harder. The problem with funding is not the fault of the staff. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that funding will be examined specifically.

Mr. Sackville: I would expect the regional health authority and the districts concerned to arrive at a fair method of allocating funds to match the problems—social, medical and others—of the local population. The hon. Lady makes an important point.
I have been assured that, if redundancies are necessary, the trust would hope to confine them to support services and administration. It would not be looking for redundancies. It would be more likely to seek a freezing of vacancies to ensure that savings could be made without painful, large-scale redundancies or damage to patient services. It is an exercise that has had to be undertaken at several hospitals throughout the country. The hon. Lady will rarely, if ever, have heard of large-scale redundancies in our acute hospitals.
The hon. Members for Ladywood and for Perry Barr asked about openness. I give an undertaking that no plans will be brought forward in secret. If there are to be developments at City hospital, they will be discussed widely.
I reiterate that it is unfortunate that various rumours have circulated and that Mr. Tarver's remarks have been misinterpreted, giving rise to the idea that the hospital will close. There are no plans to close City hospital.

Mr. Rooker: I have not had any discussions with Mr. Tarver for about two and a half years. Given what has been said, and in the light of the letter last week from the regional executive disowning Mr. Tarver's letter to me, I seek an assurance that Mr. Tarver, who has been a loyal servant to the health authority, will not be made a scapegoat because of the bad publicity that has been received by the RHA. It is bad enough that consultants have been threatened with the sack for talking to Members here and in the other place. We shall not accept the scapegoating of any servant of the health service in Birmingham for doing his duty and telling the truth. I seek the Minister's assurance that Mr. Tarver will not be scapegoated.

Mr. Sackville: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred should not be seen as anything more than a contribution to the debate.

Ms Short: Mr. Tarver is deeply respected by everyone who lives in the area of which I represent a part. Perhaps he was more honest than some when discussions took place at dinners. Rumours have been confirmed by several different sources. We are not dealing only with Mr. Tarver's minute.
It would be intolerable if it were suggested that he should be penalised in any way. We consider him to be a good man and we want him to continue to work for the trust.

Mr. Sackville: I note the defence that has been mounted on behalf of Mr. Tarver. I am not attacking him. I am trying to put in context the views that have been expressed, which have clearly led to considerable alarm.
It was said by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) that in the west midlands, especially in Birmingham, there has been a period of relative calm about health matters in recent months, and perhaps over the past year or more. That is to be welcomed, and I hope that it will continue.
Much has happened over the past few months. More patients are being treated. About £26 million is being spent on improving primary care facilities. There has been a remarkable achievement in waiting times, as the hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned. The redevelopment of City hospital has been mooted and it should be good news for health in Birmingham if it goes ahead.
Birmingham is acknowledged as a centre of excellence. It is home to Europe's first quick and early diagnosis unit for cancer treatment. It is one of the country's designated heart transplant centres. New and high-quality accident and emergency facilities are being developed in a number of places. There is good news. It is unfortunate that certain reports have given rise to alarm. I hope that I have been able to put the matter in context.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.